THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 

239  • 

C63r 


■msssm' 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

University  of  Illinois  Library 


jijov  j  8  p':. 


M32— 30715 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 
IN  THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITINGS 
OF  THE  FIRST  TWO  CENTURIES 

AN  HISTORICO-APOLOGETICAL  INVESTIGATION 


aDififflfertation 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  SACRED  SCIENCES  AT  THE  CATHOLIC 
UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE 
REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  IN  SACRED  THEOLOGY 


BY  THE 

REV.  ALPHONSE  JOHN  COAN,  O.  F.  M.,  S.  T.  L., 

OF  THE  PROVINCE  OF  THE  SACRED  HEART, 

ST.  LOUIS,  MISSOURI 


THE  UBKAHr  OF  THE 
JUL  ■§ — WPi 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 

1924  V 


Nihil  Obstat. 


CoNRADiNUS  Wallbraux,  0.  F.  M.,  Lector  G’lis. 
Leo  Oboleyer,  0.  F.  M.,  S.  T.  D. 

Censores  Deputati. 

Imprimi  Potest. 

Martinus  Strub,  0.  F.  M. 

Minister  Provincialis. 

Sti.  Ludovici,  Mo., 

die  17.  Aprilis^  1924. 

Nihil  Obstat. 

J.  Bruaeau,  S.  S.,  S.  T.  D. 

Censor  Deputatus. 

Imprimatur. 

Michael  J.  Curled;,  D.  D. 

Archiepiscopus  Baltimorensis. 
Baltimorae,  Md., 

die  18.  Aprilis,  1924. 

5.3^1 
C-  UO  n. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PREFACE  .  V 

INTRODUCTORY  CHAPTER .  1 

1.  The  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith .  2 

2.  The  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith .  4 

3.  The  Point  of  Controversy .  0 


CHAPTER  L  ST.  CLEMENT  OF  ROME .  8 

1.  St.  Clement,  an  Important  Witness . .  .  8 

2.  Letter  to  the  Corinthians .  9 

3.  Objection  of  Protestant  Critics .  11 

4.  Rule  of  Faith  in  Clement’s  Letter .  16 

a)  The  Letter,  an  Authoritative  Message .  16 

b)  The  Letter,  an  Excellent  Proof  for  the  Divine  Authority 

of  the  Bishops .  21 

e)  An  Argument  for  the  Apostolic  Succession .  24 

d)  No  Argument  for  Congregational  Government .  25 

e)  The  Teaching  Authority  of  the  Bishops .  29 


CHAPTER  II.  THE  DIDACHE .  30 

1.  As  A  Testimony .  30 

2.  Rule  of  Faith  in  the  Did  ache . . .  34 

a)  The  Bishops  and  Deacons  not  Community  Officials .  38 

b)  The  Bishops  and  Deacons  not  primarily  Administrative 

Officials  .  39 

c)  The  Bishops  and  Deacons  not  Dependent  upon  the  Apos¬ 

tles,  Prophets  and  Teachers  of  the  Did  ache  for  their 
Teaching  Authority .  41 


CHAPTER  III.  ST.  IGNATIUS  OF  ANTIOCH .  45 

1.  As  A  Witness  to  the  Rule  of  Faith .  45 

2.  The  Ignatian  Question .  47 

3.  Authenticity  .  49 

4.  The  Rule  of  Faith  in  the  Ignatian  Letters .  50 

^  a )  Heresy  Denounced .  50 

b)  Submission  to  the  Bishops . 54 


tr 

a. 


CHAPTER  IV.  ST.  POLYCARP  OF  SMYRNA 

1.  As  A  Witness  for  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

2.  Letter  to  the  Philippians . . 

3.  Rule  of  Faith  in  Polycarp’s  Letter. 


62 

62 

65 

66 


551554 


111 


IV 


COXTENTS 


PAGE 


CHAPTER  V.  ST.  IRENAEUS  OF  LYONS .  69 

1.  As  A  Witness  to  the  Rule  of  Faith .  69 

2,  Rule  of  Faith  in  the  Work  Adversus  Haereses .  75 

CHAPTER  VI.  TERTULLIAN .  94 

1.  As  A  Witness  for  the  Rule  of  Faith .  94 

2.  De  Praescriptione  Haereticorum .  95 

3.  Rule  of  Faith  According  to  Tertullian .  96 

SUMMARY .  108 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


111 


PEEFACE. 


The  following  study  on  the  Enle  of  Faith  centers 
around  the  principal  ecclesiastical  writings  of  the  first 
two  centuries.  The  writer  purposely  omits  the  argu¬ 
ments,  so  frequently  advanced  from  Scripture  on  this 
subject,  and  confines  himself  to  the  evidence  found  in  the 
works  of  St.  Clement  of  Eome,  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch, 
St.  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  St.  Irenaens  of  Gaul  and  Ter- 
tullian  of  Carthage,  those  great  champions  of  the  heroic 
age  of  the  Church. 

At  the  present  time  when  doubt  and  perplexity  is  aris¬ 
ing  in  the  minds  of  many,  regarding  even  the  very  funda¬ 
mental  truths  of  Christianity,  it  may  be  of  interest  to 
some  earnest  seekers  of  truth  to  know  what  the  heirs  and 
successors  of  the  Apostles  held  and  taught  on  that  all- 
important  question.  Why  do  I  believe*? 

The  writer  takes  this  occasion  to  acknowledge  his 
indebtedness  to  the  Very  Eev.  Charles  F.  Aiken,  S.  T.  D., 
under  whose  guidance  and  encouragement  this  mono¬ 
graph  was  undertaken  and  completed.  He  is  also  grate¬ 
ful  to  the  Very  Eev.  Daniel  J.  Kennedy,  0.  P.,  S.  T. 
M.,  and  the  Eev.  Heinrich  Schumacher,  S.  T.  D.,  whose 
courses  he  attended  at  the  Catholic  University  of 
America.  He  wishes  to  express  at  the  same  time  his 
sincere  thanks  to  his  Very  Eev.  Provincial,  Fr.  Martin 
Strub,  0.  F.  M.,  for  his  kind  interest  and  assistance. 


Mt.  St.  Sepulchre, 

Washington,  D.  C., 

Feast  of  St.  Joseph,  1924. 


V 


INTRODUCTOEY  CHAPTER. 


The  Rule  of  Faith. 

Christians  are  divided  into  two  great  camps  concern¬ 
ing  the  rule  of  faith.  The  one  rallies  round  the  Catholic 
standard,  the  other  round  the  Protestant.  The  one  insists 
on  the  authority  of  a  divinely  established  Church,  the 
other  clings  to  private  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  No 
little  controversy  has  been  carried  on  between  the  two 
parties  down  through  the  last  three  centuries.  Catholics 
maintained  that  Protestants  had  broken  away  from  the 
Apostolic  faith  and  traditions ;  Protestants  declared  that 
the  Catholic  hierarchy  had  distorted  Christ’s  ideal,  had 
robbed  the  Christians  of  that  primitive  spiritual  freedom 
and  established  an  autocracy  incompatible  with  the  mind 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

Until  the  last  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  Protestants 
carried  on  a  continual  warfare  against  the  authority  of 
the  Church.  For  arguments  they  frequently  resorted  to 
ridicule  and  calumny.  In  recent  times  this  procedure  has 
been  dropped.  The  Protestant  critic  today  pursues  an 
entirely  different  course.  He  goes  back  to  the  early  writ¬ 
ings  of  the  Church  and  seeks  a  vindication  of  his  stand¬ 
point  in  the  history  of  the  primitive  Church.  This  method 
is  both  enlightening  and  gratifying.  It  is  the  right  course 
of  procedure,  for  the  early  ecclesiastical  writings,  com¬ 
ing  as  they  do,  from  men  closely  associated  with  the 
Apostles  themselves,  are  invaluable  guides  in  doctrinal 
disputes. 

Protestant  critics,  however,  do  not  find  the  testimony 
of  the  early  Church  documents  favorable  to  the  Catholic 
position.  They  see  in  them  rather  an  argument  for 
Protestantism. 


1 


2 


It  is  the  purpose  of  the  present  work,  therefore,  to 
examine  the  early  ecclesiastical  literature  and  ascertain, 
whether  it  bears  witness  to  Catholicism  or  Protestantism, 
in  other  words,  whether  it  is  an  argument  for  the  Cath¬ 
olic  rule  of  faith  or  for  the  Protestant. 

The  Catholic  Rule  of  Faith. 

Before  entering  upon  the  problem,  however,  it  is  im¬ 
portant  to  know  just  what  is  meant  by  the  rule  of  faith. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  necessary  to  have  a  clear  notion 
of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith  and  of  the  Protestant,  and  to 
know  wherein  lies  the  real  bone  of  contention. 

The  word  rule  (Latin,  regula, — Creek,  fcavo)v)  means  a 
standard  or  measure,  with  which  something  can  be  tested. 
A  rule  of  faith,  therefore,  signifies  a  standard  for  our 
faith,  a  norm  by  which  we  can  know  with  certainty,  what 
we  must  believe  in  order  to  be  saved.  It  is  something 
extrinsic  to  our  faith. 

The  Catholic  rule  of  faith  is  expressed  in  one  of  the 
decrees  of  the  Vatican  Council:  ‘‘  For ro  fide  divina  et 
catholica  ea  omnia  credenda  sunt,  quae  in  verho  Dei 
scripto  vel  tradito  continentur  et  ah  Ecclesia  sive  solemni 
judicio  sive  ordinario  et  universali  magisterio  tamquam 
divinitus  revelata  credenda  proponuntur.’’  ^ 

This  definition  contains  two  important  elements. 
First,  it  indicates  the  sources  of  our  belief,  namely. 
Scripture  and  Tradition, — quae  in  verho  Dei  scripto 
vel  tradito  continentur.^^  This  is  called  in  the  language 
of  the  theologians  the  remote  rule  of  faith,  regula  fidei 
remota.  Secondly,  it  gives  the  reason  for  our  belief, 
namely,  the  teaching  authority  of  the  Church.  The 
Church  draws  her  doctrine  from  the  teaching  of  the 
Apostles  as  manifested  in  the  Scriptures  and  Tradition. 
These  doctrines  she  proposes  to  the  faithful  either  by  a 
solemn  decision  or  by  the  ordinary  and  universal  magis- 

^  Denzinger-Bannwart,  Enchiridion  Symbolorum  (1922  ),  p.  476,  no.  1792. 


% 


3 


teriiim, — ‘‘et  ah  Ecclesia  sive  solemni  judicio  sive  ordi- 
nario  et  universali  magisterio  tamquam  divinitus  reve- 
lata  credenda  proponuntur.^^  This  is  known  as  the  prox¬ 
imate  rule  of  faith,  the  regula  fidei  proxima. 

The  Apostles  were  commissioned  by  Christ  not  to 
write  the  Gospel,  but  to  preach  it.  ‘‘Going  therefore, 
teach  ye  all  nations.’’  ^  “Go  ye  into  the  whole  world  and 
preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.”^  That  the  Apos¬ 
tles  obeyed  this  divine  mandate  is  evident  from  numerous 
passages  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  ^  and  from  many 
instances  in  the  Letters  of  St.  Paul.  The  latter,  for 
example,  writes:  “Therefore,  brethren,  stand  fast;  and 
hold  the  traditions  which  you  have  learned,  whether  by 
word,  or  by  our  epistle”;  ®  “and  the  things  which  thou 
hast  heard  of  me  by  many  witnesses,  the  same  commend 
to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  fit  to  teach  others  also.”  ® 
As  Lightfoot  remarks:  “The  Christian  teachers  in 
primitive  ages  were  evangelists,  not  authors,  preachers, 
not  historians.  The  written  literature  was  only  the 
casual  effilorescence  of  the  spoken.”’^  The  Apostles 
wrote  only  incidentally,  and  then  for  special  grave 
reasons.  They  wrote  not  for  the  universal  Church,  but 
for  individual  communities.  In  some  cases  they  wrote  to 
individuals,  as  the  Epistles  of  Sf.  Paul  to  Timothy,  Titus 
and  Philemon  testify.  Besides  only  a  few  of  the  disciples 
wrote.  Moreover,  the  doctrine  of  Christ  was  known 
before  it  was  recorded  by  the  evangelists,  and  the  whole 
religion  of  Christ  was  active  before  one  of  them  began 
to  write.  Hence  Scripture  alone  cannot  be  the  sole  source 
of  doctrine.  It  must  be  supplemented  by  Tradition. 

If  the  written  Word  were  the  sole  rule  of  faith,  then 


^  Mt.  xxviii,  19. 

®  Mark,  xvi,  15. 

^  Cfr.  Acts,  ii,  iii,  iv,  v,  viii,  ix,  xi,  xiii,  etc. 

^  II  Thess.  ii,  14. 

^  II  Tim.  ii,  2. 

Apostolio  Fathers  (1890),  Part  I,  Vol.  I,  p.  1. 


4 


only  those  who  can  read  would  have  a  chance  to  be  saved. 
A  rule  of  faith,  however,  must  be  accessible  to  all.  If 
Scripture  alone  were  our  only  authority  in  doctrinal 
matters,  then  why  are  there  so  many  difficulties  in  Holy 
Writ?  Even  St.  Peter  tells  us  that  the  Epistles  of  St. 
Paul  contain  ‘‘certain  things  hard  to  be  understood, 
which  the  unlearned  and  unstable  wrest,  as  they  do  also 
the  other  Scriptures,  to  their  own  destruction.’^^  But 
a  rule  of  faith  must  be  easy  to  ascertain.  These  are  the 
arguments  advanced  by  Catholics  in  defence  of  their 
standard  of  belief. 

And  since  the  Church  was  the  recipient  of  the  apostolic 
teaching,  since  she  has  faithfully  preserved  and-  zeal¬ 
ously  guarded  this  doctrine  down  through  the  centuries, 
she  is  able  to  tell  us  what  that  teaching  is.  Since  she 
has  received  the  assurance  of  the  special  assistance  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  she  is  able  to  give  us  the  true  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  apostolic  doctrine.  She  is  the  authority. 
Hence  it  is  on  the  authority  of  the  Church  that  Catholics 
depend  for  their  belief.  Ask  a  Catholic  why  he  believes 
in  the  Immaculate  Conception,  or  why  he  holds  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  papal  infallibility,  and  he  will  answer,  “The 
Church  teaches  it.”  The  infallible,  authoritative  teach¬ 
ing  voice  of  the  Church  is,  therefore,  the  Catholic’s 
standard  of  belief,  his  rule  of  faith. 

The  Protestant  Rule  of  Faith. 

Very  different,  however,  is  the  Protestant  conception 
of  the  rule  of  faith.  Protestants  claim  that  the  Bible, 
and  the  Bible  only,  interpreted  by  the  judgment  of  the 
individual,  is  the  rule  of  faith.  The  Augsburg  Confes¬ 
sion,  the  first  and  most  important  Lutheran  Symbol,  does 
not  mention  the  Bible  principle,  but  it  is  nevertheless 
based  upon  it.  The  preface  declares,  that  the  Confession 
is  “derived  from  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  pure  Word  of 


®  II  Peter,  iii,  16. 


5 


God/’^  The  Form  of  Concord,  however,  is  more  ex¬ 
plicit.  It  begins:  ^‘We  believe,  teach  and  confess  that 
the  only  rule  and  norm,  according  to  which  all  dogmas 
and  all  doctors  ought  to  be  esteemed  and  judged,  is  no 
other  whatever  than  the  prophetic  and  apostolic  writings 
both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.” 

That  the  Eeformed  Churches  make  the  Scripture  their 
sole  rule  of  faith  is  indicated  in  the  First  Helvetic  Con¬ 
fession,  composed  in  1536  A.  D.  It  expressly  states,  that 
the  canonical  Scripture  alone  perfectly  contains  the 
Word  of  God,  the  things  handed  down  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  proposed  to  the  world  by  the  prophets  and  Apostles, 
the  most  perfect  and  most  ancient  philosophy  of  all  things, 
all  piety,  all  reason  of  life.  Its  interpretation  must  be 
sought  in  itself,  as  it  is  the  interpreter  of  itself,  the 
guiding  rule  being  charity  and  faith. And  the  Second 
Helvetic  Confession  adds,  we  endure  no  other  judge  in 
the  cause  of  faith  than  God  Himself,  pronouncing 
through  the  Holy  Scriptures,  what  is  true,  what  is  false, 
what  must  be  done,  what  must  be  avoided.^^ 

The  French  Confession  of  Faith,  prepared  by  Calvin 
and  his  pupil  He  Chandieu  (1559  A.  D.),  also  professes 
the  same  standard  of  belief.  ^‘The  Scriptures,”  it  says, 
‘‘are  the  sure  rule  of  faith  and  are  known  not  so  much 
by  the  common  accord  and  consent  of  the  Church  as  by 
the  testimony  and  illumination  of  the  Holy  Spirit.” 

The  same  truth  is  expressed  by  the  Westminster  Con- 

®  S'chaff,  P.,  Creeds  of  Christendom  (1877),  Vol.  Ill,  p.  4. 

Ihid.,  p.  931-94. 

^^  Schaff,  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  211-212:  ‘‘iScriptura  canonica  Verbum 
Dei,  Spiritu  Sancbo  tradita,  et  per  prophetas  apostolosque  mundo  propo- 
sita,  omnium  perfectissima  et  antiquissima  Philosophia,  pietatem  omnem, 
omnem  vitae  rationem  sola  perfecte  continet.  Hujus  interpretatio  ex  ipsa 
sola  petenda  est,  ut  ipsa  interpres  sit  sui,  caritatis  fideique  regula  moder- 
ante.” 

Idid.,  p.  '239 :  Non  alium  sustinemus  in  causa  fidei  judicem,  quam 
ipsum  Deum,  per  Scripturas  iSanctas  pronunciantem,  quid  verum  sit,  quid 
falsum,  quid  sequendum,  quidve  fugiendum.” 

^^Ihid.,  p.  361. 


6 


fession  (1647  A.  D.).  ^^The  authority  of  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  for  which  it  ought  to  he  believed  and  obeyed,  de- 
pendeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or  Church, 
but  wholly  upon  Grod  (who  is  truth  itself),  the  author 
thereof ;  and  therefore  it  is  to  be  received,  because  it  is  the 

Word  of  Grod.  Yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion 

« 

and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine  author¬ 
ity  thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  Word  in  our  hearts/’ 

Going  down  the  centuries  one  finds  that  all  the  later 
and  more  modern  sects  base  their  doctrine  on  the  same 
principle.  In  fact  it  can  truly  be  said  that  they  give  even 
greater  latitude  to  private  interpretation. 

In  defence  of  their  rule  of  faith  Protestants  say,  that 
the  religion  of  Christ  was  preached  by  the  Apostles  and 
then  committed  to  writing,  and  this  writing  has  been 
handed  down  from  one  age  to  another.  Now,  they  say, 
a  rule  of  faith  must  be  sufficiently  plain  and  intelligible 
and  certain.  The  Bible  has  these  requisites.  It  is  suffi¬ 
ciently  clear,  at  least,  on  those  points  which  are  to  be 
believed  and  practised.  It  is  a  sufficiently  certain  norm, 
for  it  contains  the  apostolic  doctrine,  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  believe  that  the  sacred  books  suffered  any  sub¬ 
stantial  alteration.  Since  the  Bible  contains  the  whole 
preaching  of  the  Apostles,  it  alone  suffices.  Tradition  is 
not  necessary.  Nor  is  there  any  need  of  an  authoritative 
teaching  voice.  Holy  Scripture  is  the  complete  and  sole 
rule  of  faith,  both  remote  and  proximate,  both  active  and 
passive. 

The  Point  of  Controversy. 

From  the  foregoing  it  is  apparent  that  the  controversy 
between  the  two  religious  elements  centers  round  author¬ 
ity.  The  one  rule  of  faith  is  based  on  the  authority  of 
the  Church ;  the  other,  on  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  pri- 


Schaff,  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  602-603. 


7 


vately  interpreted.  The  one  is  founded  on  the  authori¬ 
tative  teaching  voice  of  the  Church;  the  other,  on  what 
each  individual  thinks  to  be  the  voice  of  God  contained 
in  the  Bible.  Both  sides  find  a  vindication  of  their  re¬ 
spective  doctrine  in  the  practice  and  teaching  of  the  early 
Church.  For  that  reason  a  study  of  the  early  ecclesias¬ 
tical  writings  may  help  clarify  the  problem. 


CHAPTER  I. 


St.  Clement  of  Rome. 

1.  St.  element^  an  Important  Witness. 

An  important  witness  for  the  rule  of  faith  in  the  early 
Church  is  St.  Clement  of  Rome.  St.  Clement,  according 
to  a  very  ancient  list  of  popes  made  by  Hegesippus  at 
the  time  of  Pope  Anicetus  (ca.  160),  was  the  third  suc¬ 
cessor  of  St.  Peter  to  the  See  of  Rome,  i.  e.,  the  fourth 
pope.  Eusebius  reckons  his  pontificate  from  the  twelfth 
year  of  Domitian’s  reign  to  the  third  of  Trajan’s  (92- 
101  A.  D.).i 

Clement  enjoyed  peculiar  prominence  in  the  early 
Church,  not  only  on  account  of  his  high  position,  but  also 
on  account  of  his  relations  to  the  Apostles  Peter  and 
Paul.  St.  Irenaeus  tells  us,  that  Clement  ^saw  the  Apos¬ 
tles  themselves,  that  he  conversed  with  them,  and  that  he 
had  their  preaching  still  ringing  in  his  ears  and  had  their 
tradition  still  present  before  his  eyes,  and  that  he  was 
not  the  only  one,  but  many  others  there  were  still  who 
had  been  taught  by  the  Apostles.  ’  ^  Epiphanius  also, 
probably  on  the  testimony  of  Hegesippus,  speaks  of 
Clement  as  a  contemporary  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.'"^ 
Besides,  as  Lightfoot  remarks,  ‘Hhe  tradition  that  he  was 
the  disciple  of  one  or  both  of  these  Apostles  is  early, 
constant  and  definite,  and  borne  out  by  the  character  and 
contents  of  the  epistle  itself.”^  Being  therefore,  a  dis¬ 
ciple  of  the  two  foremost  Apostles  and  being  conversant 
in  their  doctrine,  he  is  an  excellent  witness  to  the  teach- 


^  Bistoria  Ecclesiastica,  III,  15,  34. 
2  Adversus  Eaereses,  III,  3,  3. 

®  Eaereses,  XXVII,  6. 

^  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  361. 

8 


9 


ing  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  his  day.  As  such  he  is 
looked  upon  hy  contemporary  and  later  writers.  So 
highly,  in  fact,  was  he  esteemed  that  he  was  believed  by 
some  ancient  writers  to  have  been  the  author  of  the  Epis¬ 
tle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  Clementine  writings,  evidently 
of  a  later  period,  were  given  out  in  his  name.  The  posi¬ 
tion  assigned  to  him  in  this  romance  ‘4s  inexplicable,’’ 
says  Lightfoot,  “except  on  the  supposition  that  he  was 
known  in  the  Church  at  large  as  an  expositor  of  the 
apostolic  doctrine,  whether  by  authorship  or  by  preach¬ 
ing  or  both.  ’  ’  ^ 


2.  Letter  to  the  Corinthians, 

St.  Clement’s  testimony  regarding  the  rule  of  faith  is 
to  be  found  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  This  work 
was  occasioned  by  a  disturbance  in  the  Church  of  Cor¬ 
inth.  A  few  ‘headstrong  and  self-willed’  men  had  arisen 
against  their  ecclesiastical  superiors  and  driven  them 
from  office.®  In  consequence  the  community  at  Corinth 
was  in  great  confusion  (ch.  3),  and  those  outside  the 
Church  had  a  pretext  to  ‘heap  blasphemies  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord’  (ch.  47).  In  order  that  peace  be  restored  in 
the  divided  community,  Clement  wrote  the  Corinthians  a 
long,  fatherly  letter,  in  which  he  inculcated  the  duties  of 
meekness,  humility  and  obedience  and  submission  to  law¬ 
ful,  ecclesiastical  authority. 

That  Clement  was  the  author  of  this  letter  there  can 
be  no  doubt."^  The  evidence  in  his  favor  is  so  strong, 

®  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  3^61. 

®Cfr.  1,  1,  and  47.  That  the  schism  was  due  to  a  revolt  of  the  office¬ 
bearers  against  the  ecstatic  ‘  spiritual  ’  preachers  rests  on  no  satisfactory 
basis.  There  is  no  indication  in  the  epistle  that  the  preaching  of  the 
Word  of  God  was  carried  on  by  the  so-called  pneumatici.  Nor  does  the 
Letter  give  any  reasons  to  suppose  that  the  trouble  was  caused  by  disputes 
between  a  Pauline  and  an  anti-Pauline  party. 

Schwegler  and  Baur  denied  the  authenticity  as  well  as  the  integrity 
of  the  writing.  They  were  ably  refuted,  however,  by  Bunsen  and  Ritschl. 


10 


that  no  fair-minded  critic  can  reject  it.  There  is  in  the 
first  place  the  testimony  of  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth, 
who  (ca.  170  A.  D.)  in  his  letter  to  Pope  Soter  (ca.  166- 
170  A.  D.)  says:  ‘‘Today  we  have  celebrated  the  Lord’s 
holy  day,  in  which  we  have  read  your  Letter.  From  it, 
whenever  we  read  it,  we  shall  always  be  able  to  draw 
advice,  as  also  from  the  former  Letter  which  was  written 
to  us  by  Clement :  r^v  Trporepav  '^plv  Sea  KXrjpLevro^  ypa- 

<f>6laavj  sc.  i7rt(TTo\i]v.'^^^  This  evidence  is  quite  decisive.  The 
letter  comes  from  the  Church  of  Corinth.  It  is  sent  to  the 
Church  of  Rome.  There  is  consequently  the  testimony 
of  the  two  Churches  concerned.  Dionysius  takes  it  as  a 
matter  of  course  that  the  epistle  of  Clement  is  well  known 
in  both  communities.  And  the  testimony  is  all  the  more 
important,  since  it  mentions  St.  Clement’s  letter  inci¬ 
dentally. 

Then  there  is  the  testimony  of  St.  Irenaeus  (ca.  180 
A.  D.).  St.  Irenaeus  associates  Ihe  letter  with  Clement’s 
name.  In  his  work  Adversus  Haereses,  III,  3,  3  we  read: 
“In  the  time  of  this  Clement,  no  small  dissension,  having 
occurred  among  the  brethren  at  Corinth,  the  Church  in 
Rome  dispatched  a  most  powerful  letter  to  the  Cor¬ 
inthians  (eVl  TovTov  ovv  Tov  KXyp,€Pro?  .  .  .  iireaTeCkev  17  ev 
*V(iypby  eKKXrjala  l/cavcoTari^v  ypa^yp  rot?  exhorting 

them  to  peace,  renewing  their  faith,  and  declaring  the 
tradition  which  it  had  lately  received  from  the  apostles.” 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (ca.  200  A.  D.)  is  even  more 
explicit;.  He  speaks  of  the  letter  as  Clement’s  at  least 
four  times.^  All  later  writers,  as  Origen,  Eusebius,  Cy¬ 
ril  of  Jerusalem,  Basil  of  Alexandria  and  others,  assign 
the  epistle  to  Clement  of  Rome.  Nor  has  the  letter  ever 
been  assigned  to  anyone  else.  Clement,  in  view  of  his 
association  with  the  Apostles  and  his  prominent  position 

®  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  IV,  23,  11.  The  translation  is  taken  from  Bar- 
denhewer-Shahan’s  Patrology  (IQ-OS),  p.  27.  Literally  dia  KXrifxePTos 
means  “  through  ”  Clement. 

^Stromata,  I,  7,  38;  IV,  17-19;  IV,  18,  113;  VI,  8,  6.5. 


11 


in  the  Church,  was  certainly  the  logical  man  to  write  the 
work.  Critics,  therefore,  are  nnanimons  at  the  present 
time  in  ascribing  it  to  Clement  of  Rome. 

That  the  epistle  is  a  faithful  interpretation  of  the  apos¬ 
tolic  doctrine,  is  most  reasonable  to  hold.  Love  for  the 
Apostles  would  make  Clement  abhor  any  deviation  from 
their  teaching.  Irenaeus  assigns  the  greatest  impor¬ 
tance  to  the  letter.^^  And  the  reason  is,  as  Lightfoot 
remarks,  because  it  records  ‘‘the  traditional  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  apostolic  teaching  which  prevailed  in  the  great 
Church  of  Rome  from  the  earliest  times.’’  “In  no  sense 
does  he  regard  it  in  itself  as  a  primary  source  of 
truth.”  “He  describes  not  the  source  but  the  channel 
of  the  apostolic  tradition,  though  the  channel  at  the  point 
where  the  stream  issues  from  its  sources.” 

The  date  commonly  assigned  to  the  letter  is  95  or  96 
A.  D.  Harnack  says,  that  external  and  internal  evidence 
place  the  epistle  at  the  end  of  Domitian’s  reign,  namely, 
between  the  years  93  and  95,  scarcely  later.^^  The  work 
has  come  down  to  us  in  two  Greek  codices,  the  Codex 
Alexandrinus  and  the  Codex  lerosolymitanus.^^ 

3.  Objection  of  Protestant  Critics. 

While  the  great  majority  of  Protestant  critics  admit 
the  Clementine  authorship,  they  declare  at  the  same  time 
that  the  letter  is  the  work,  not  of  an  individual,  but  of 
the  Roman  community.  They  seek  to  justify  their  view 
by  saying  that  Clement  was  merely  ‘the  spokesman,’  ‘the 
natural  mouthpiece  of  the  Church  of  Rome  in  its  com¬ 
munication  with  a  sister  community.  ’ 

Op.  cit,  III,  3,  3.  “  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  366. 

Geschichte  der  altcJiristlichen  Literatur,  II.  Bd.,  Vol.  I,  p.  255. 

Cfr.  Lightfoot’s  Apostolic  Fathers,  Vol.  I,  p.  116  sq.  Bardenhewer, 
Die  Geschichte  der  altJcirchlichen  Literatur  (1913),  Vol.  I,  p.  126;  Gob- 
hardt-Harnack,  Texte  und  Untersuchungen  (1893),  11.  Bd.,  p.  20  sq. 

Cfr.  Lightfoot,  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  358  sq. ;  Marsh,  Dictionary  of  the 
Apostolic  Age  (1916),  Vol.  I,  p.  217., 

2 


12 


The  grounds  for  this  hypothesis  are,  first,  the  letter 
nowhere  claims  to  have  been  written  by  Clement.  It  is 
written  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  community.  ‘‘The 
Church  of  Grod,  which  sojourneth  in  Rome  to  the  Church 
of  God  which  sojourned  in  Corinth^’  (ch.  1). 

Secondly,  the  plural  form  is  used,  ‘we  consider,’  ‘re¬ 
ceive  our  counsel,’  ‘the  words  spoken  by  Him  through 
us,’  ‘we  shall  be  guiltless  of  this  sin,’  etc. 

Thirdly,  the  early  testimonies,  e.  g.,  of  Hegesippus  and 
Irenaeus  are  not  explicit  enough,  and  the  words  of  Dio¬ 
nysius  of  Corinth  (by,  thru,  by  the  hands 

of)  is  ambiguous,  since  it  may  mean  anyone  of  three 
things,  either  the  author  or  the  amanuensis  or  the  bearer 
of  the  letter.  Clement  of  Alexandria  (ca.  200  A.  D.), 
they  remind  us,  was  the  first  to  state  expressly  that  Cle¬ 
ment  of  Rome  was  the  author.^® 

Catholic  and  conservative  Protestant  critics,  on  the 
other  hand,  maintain  that  the  letter  is  that  of  Clement,  and 
not  of  the  Church  of  Rome;  the  work  of  an  individual, 
and  not  of  a  community.  They  refuse  to  reject  an  an¬ 
cient  and  time-honored  tradition,  for  which  there  is  so 
strong  a  body  of  evidence.  “Many  years  before  the 
earliest  of  the  above-named  writers  flourished,”  says 
Lightfoot,  “Clement  of  Rome  is  regarded  as  an  author; 
and  the  language  used  of  him  is  only  explained  by  the 
existence  of  such  a  letter  commonly  attributed  to  him.” 

Moreover,  the  objections  raised  against  the  Clemen¬ 
tine  authorship  can  be  readily  solved.  It  is  said  that 
Clement  nowhere  mentions  his  name.  It  is  true  Cle¬ 
ment’s  name  does  not  occur.  This  omission,  however, 
may  have  been  a  precautionary  measure.  The  epistle 
was  written  just  as  the  Domitian  persecution  was  draw¬ 
ing  to  a  close.  There  was  still  danger  in  the  air.  A  man 
of  Clement’s  position  would  be  a  much-prized  victim  by 


Cfr.  Lightfoot,  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  358. 
Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  359. 


13 


the  governmeiit  spies.  By  concealing  his  name  in  a  letter 
of  this  kind,  which  must  go  all  the  way  to  Corinth  and 
which  might  easily  fall  into  the  hands  of  government 
informers,  Clement  was  only  acting  according  to  the 
rules  of  prudence.  Nor  was  it  necessary  for  him  to 
sign  his  name.  The  letter  was  forwarded  by  messengers, 
through  whom  the  Corinthians  must  have  been  told  who 
was  the  author. 

It  is  true  the  epistle  is  written  in  the  name  of  the  Eo- 
man  Church.  Clement,  however,  was  the  chief  authority 
in  the  Eoman  Church,  and  when  speaking  officially,  he 
might  quite  naturally  say  ^The  Church  of  Rome,’  just  as 
nowadays  we  sometimes  speak  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
meaning  thereby  the  Pope.  When  a  diocesan  bishop 
makes  a  regulation  for  his  diocese,  we  say  the  diocese 
has  decreed  this  or  that.  The  fact  that  the  letter  of 
Clement  is  'written  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  Church  is 
by  no  means  an  argument,  therefore,  against  Clementine 
authorship,  but  rather  an  argument  in  its  favor;  for  no 
one,  except  the  Bishop  himself,  would  assume  to  write 
in  the  name  of  the  Roman  Church.  According  to  Euse¬ 
bius  some  years  later  an  epistle  was  written  by  Diony¬ 
sius,  Bishop  of  Corinth,  to  the  Romans  and  addressed  to 
Pope  Soter,  Bishop  of  Rome  at  that  time.^^  Pope  Victor 
wrote  to  Polycrates,  and  from  the  answer  of  Polycrates, 
it  seems  most  probable  that  Victor  wrote  in  the  name  of 
the  Roman  Church.  The  remonstrance  of  Irenaeus  makes 
it  only  too  plain  that  the  letter  was  that  of  Victor. 

It  was  for  this  very  reason  that  Clement,  writing  an 
official  letter  in  the  name  of  the  Roman  Church,  uses  the 
plural  form,  as  for  example,  ^we  consider,’  ^receive  our 
counsel,’  etc.  The  pluralis  majestaticus  was  the  appro¬ 
priate  and  customary  form  of  an  official  letter. 

The  third  argument  adduced  against  Clementine  au¬ 
thorship  rests  on  a  few  unwarranted  conclusions.  If  the 


Hist.  Eccles.,  IV,  23,  9. 


f 


14 


testimonies  of  Hegesippns,  Dionysius  of  Corinth  and 
Irenaeus  are  not  sufficient  to  establish  the  Clementine 
authorship,  it  must  at  least  be  said  that  they  are  import¬ 
ant  evidence  in  its  favor. 

Eusebius,  before  citing  some  passages  of  Hegesippus 
tells  us  that  Hegesippus  ^  makes  some  remarks  relating 
to  the  epistle  of  Clement  fo  the  Corinthians,’  {^lerd  nva 

irepl  /jl€Vto<;  tt/oo?  i7ricrTo\rj<;  avrw  elprj/jLeva}^ 

Eusebius  does  not  quote  the  exact  words,  it  is  said,  and 
one  can  not  rely  too  much  on  Eusebius.  There  is  no 
reason,  however,  to  doubt  Eusebius,  especially  since  he 
does  not  contradict  the  evidence  of  other  witnesses,  but 
agrees  with  it. 

Dionysius  of  Corinth,  it  is  argued,  uses  an  ambiguous 
term  Sta  RXi^fievro^.  Now  it  is  unwarranted  in  this  case 
to  say  that  KXrJ/xez^ro?  can  have  any  other  meaning 
than  Clementine  authorship.  It  cannot  mean  ‘the  bearer 
of  the  letter,’  for  the  letter  itself  states,  that  Claudius 
Ephebus  and  Valerius  Bito  and  Fortunatus  were  the 
ones  entrusted  with  the  letter.  “Now  send  ye  back  speed¬ 
ily  unto  us  our  messengers  Claudius  Ephebus  and  Vale¬ 
rius  Bito,  together  with  Fortunatus  also”  (ch.  65,  1). 
Nor  can  it  mean  the  amanuensis,  because  it  was  not  cus¬ 
tomary  to  ascribe  a  work  to  the  amanuensis.  Caesar, 
Cicero  and  other  writers  of  the  time  evidently  employed 
amanuenses,  but  their  books  are  not  ascribed  to  the  lat¬ 
ter.  Clement,  Bishop  of  Rome,  was  more  than  an  amanu¬ 
ensis.  The  passage  of  Dionysius  has  only  one  satisfac¬ 
tory  meaning,  and  that  is,  that  Clement  is  the  author. 

As  to  the  testimony  of  Irenaeus  to  the  effect  that  the 
Church  of  Rome  sent  a  most  sufficient  letter  to  the 
Corinthians  in  the  time  of  Clement,  it  should  be  read  in 
conjunction  with  the  evidence  of  Dionysius  and  Eusebius 
and  Clement  of  Alexandria.  Isolated  from  the  context, 
this  passage  of  Irenaeus  (Adv.  Haer.  iii,  3,  3)  may  seem 


Op.  cit.,  IV,  22,  11. 


15 


a  weak  argument,  but  read  in  connection  with  the  whole 
context,  it  plainly  bears  witness  to  Clementine  author¬ 
ship.  If  Clement  is  not  taken  to  be  the  author  of  the 
work  in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  how  can  one  account 
for  the  fact  that  his  name,  and  none  other,  has  been  asso¬ 
ciated  with  the  letter?  How  can  one  account  for  the 
great  mass  of  evidence  and  the  constant  tradition,  which 
assigns  the  epistle  to  Clement? 

Moreover,  the  strong  personal  tone  of  the  letter  and 
the  constant,  uniform  style  of  the  whole,  plainly  show 
that  the  work  is  the  composition  not  of  a  number  of  indi¬ 
viduals,  but  of  one  man.  Paternal  solicitude  is  evinced 
by  the  author  throughout.  In  the  very  beginning  he  gives 
expression  to  his  regret,  because  he  is  hindered  from 
writing  sooner.  ‘^We  consider  that  we  have  been  some¬ 
what  tardy  in  giving  heed  to  the  matters  of  dispute  that 
have  arisen  among  you,  dearly  beloved,  .  .  (ch.  1). 
He  grieves  that  the  Corinthians,  whose  ‘‘name,  once 
revered  and  renowned  and  lovely  in  the  sight  of  all  men, 
hath  been  greatly  reviled’^  (ch.  1).  It  is  with  the  loving 
memory  of  a  father  that  he  recounts  their  past  goodness, 
their  humility  and  obedience.  “  Ye  were  sincere  and  sim¬ 
ple  and  free  from  malice  one  towards  another.  Every 
sedition  and  every  schism  was  abominable  to  you’’  (ch. 
2).  He  is  continually  exhorting  and  admonishing  them. 
“These  things,  dearly  beloved,  we  write,  not  only  as  ad¬ 
monishing  you,  but  also  as  putting  ourselves  in  remem¬ 
brance”  (ch.  7).  “Wherefore  let  us  be  obedient  unto 
His  excellent  and  glorious  will,”  (ch.  9)  ;  “Let  us  there¬ 
fore  be  lowly-minded,  brethren,  laying  aside  all  arrogance 
and  conceit  and  folly  and  anger,  and  let  us  do  that  which 
is  written,”  (ch.  13) ;  “Therefore  it  is  right  and  proper, 
brethren,  that  we  should  be  obedient  unto  God,”  (ch.  14) ; 
and  thus  he  continues  throughout  the  whole  epistle. 
Clement  identifies  himself  with  the  Corinthians.  He  is 
one  of  them.  He  is  just  as  eager  for  their  welfare  as  he 
is  for  his  own.  The  paternal  solicitude  and  fatherly  atti- 


16 


tude  would  hardly  be  present,  if  the  letter  was  the  work 
of  a  number  of  individuals. 

Moreover  the  uniformity  of  istyle  and  form  of  expres¬ 
sion  throughout  excludes  all  thought  of  several  authors. 
The  same  words,  phrases  and  expressions  are  interwoven 
again  and  again  throughout  the  letter,  there  is  constant 
reference  to  the  Old  Testament,  and  Hebraisms  abound 
in  it.  This  uniformity  of  thought,  tone  and  expression 
are  arguments  in  favor  of  one  individual  author. 

4.  Rule  of  Faith  in  Clementes  Letter. 

The  Letter  of  Clement,  then,  is  a  good  witness  for  the 
rule  of  faith.  The  work  is  not  a  doctrinal  treatise.  No 
mention  is  made  of  heretical  tendencies.  It  deals  with  a 
disciplinary  question.  Hence  the  arguments  for  the  sub¬ 
ject  at  issue  are  few  and  incidental,  but  for  that  very 
reason  all  the  more  convincing. 

a)  The  Letter,  an  Authoritative  Message. 

A  question,  which  confronts  us  at  the  very  outset  is, 
does  the  letter  evince  any  trace  of  authority?  This  ques¬ 
tion  is  intimately  connected  with  the  subject  in  hand, 
and  of  importance  for  it.  Catholic  critics  say,  the  epistle 
is  an  authoritative  message.  Non-Catholic  writers 
maintain,  that  it  is  merely  a  letter  of  brotherly  love,  a 
letter  of  exhortation,  written  by  a  sister  community. 
Thus  Harnack  writes:  ^Ht  (the  Homan  Church)  felt 
bound,  for  conscience’  sake,  to  give  a  serious,  brotherly 
admonition,  conscious  that  God’s  voice  spoke  through  its 
words  for  peace,  and  that  at  the  same  time  for  the  strict 
maintenance  of  respect  towards  the  authority  of  the  offi¬ 
cials.  (Cp.  xl.  f.).  Withal  it  never  forgets  that  its  place 
is  merely  to  point  out  the  right  road  to  the  Corinthians, 
not  to  lay  commands  upon  them;^^  over  and  again  it 
expresses  most  admirably  its  firm  confidence  that  the 


Cp.  esp.  LVIII,  2,  de^aade  t^v  avfx^ovX^v  iifiwv  —  accept  our  counsel. 


17 


church  knows  the  will  of  God  and  will  bethink  itself  once 
more  of  what  is  the  proper  course  (Cp.  xl.  1,  xlv.  2,  liii. 
3).”^^  Lange, Hatch, Lightfoot,^^  Pfleiderer, 
Rainy,^®  Marsh,^"^  and  others  speak  in  similar  strains. 
^‘As  a  matter  of  principle,  it  was  the  business  of 
any  Christian  community  to  step  in  and  heal  the 
breach,”  but  ^^as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  the  Church  of 
Rome  which  actually  did  so,”  says  Marsh.^®  ‘‘Such  an 
act,”  he  adds,  “was  characteristic  of  the  early  Roman 
Church.  ’  ’  And  Rainy  remarks,  ‘  ‘  that  the  Church  of 

Rome  from  its  position,  the  character  of  its  membership, 
and  the  habits  of  thought  and  action  naturally  acquired 
in  a  great  center  of  government,  could  interpose  in  such 
cases  with  advice  which  was  likely  to  be  wise,  and  felt 
entitled  to  deference.” 

Now,  it  is  true  the  letter  is  for  the  most  part  one  of 
exhortation.  But  at  the  same  time  it  contains  a  marked 
tone  of  authority.  This  is  evident  from  such  passages 
as:  “Ye  therefore  that  laid  the  foundation  of  the  sedi¬ 
tion,  submit  yourselves  unto  the  presbyters  {virord^T^Te 
Tot<:  Trpeo-^vrepoL^)  and  receive  chastisement  unto  repent¬ 
ance,  bending  the  knees  of  your  heart.  Learn  to  submit 
yourselves  {p^dOere  vTrordaaeaOaL)  ^  laying*  aside  the  arro¬ 
gant  and  proud  stubbornness  of  your  tongue”  (ch.  57). 
“Receive  our  counsel,  and  ye  shall  have  no  occasion  of 
regret  T^v  crvp^ovX^v  Kal  earat  dperapeXrjra 

vpiv),’^  (ch.  58).  Indeed  the  phrases,  ‘  submit  yourselves 
to  the  presbyters,’  ‘receive  chastisement,’  ‘receive  our 

Expansion  of  Christianity  (1904),  translated  by  James  Moffatt,  Vol. 
I,  p.  245. 

Geschichte  der  Kirche  (1854),  Vol.  II,  p.  479. 

Organization  of  the  Early  Christian  Churches  ( 1888 ) ,  Lecture  VII, 
p.  171. 

Op.  cit.,  p.  1. 

Das  Ur  Christ  entum  (1902),  Vol.  II,  p.  576. 

The  Ancient  Catholic  Church  (1902),  p.  52. 

Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  244. 

28  lUd.  29 


Op.  cit.,  p.  52. 


18 


counsel,’  may  be  taken  in  an  exhortatory  way,  but  taken  in 
the  context,  it  is  plain  that  there  is  more  than  an  exhorta¬ 
tion  expressed.  Clement  bids  the  Corinthians  submit  to 
the  presbyters  and  do  penance,  accept  his  counsel  or  suf¬ 
fer  for  their  disobedience.  In  other  words  he  plainly  tells 
them,  that  they  must  obey  or  take  the  consequences. 
Clement,  of  course,  is  speaking  ^with  intense  modera¬ 
tion.’  This  expression  indicates  that  he  would  be  jus¬ 
tified  in  using  stronger  and  more  imperative  language, 
if  he  chose  to  do  so.  He  realizes  that  ‘self-willed  and 
headstrong  men,’  who  refuse  obedience  t-o  their  local 
superiors,  would  at  the  least  provocation  spurn  obedi¬ 
ence  to  higher  authority.  The  situation  was  an  extremely 
delicate  one.  Clement,  however,  is  equal  to  the  task. 
He  shows  himself  a  master  of  diplomacy  and  psychology. 
In  order  not  to  throw  fuel  on  the  burning  flames  and 
thus  thwart  his  purpose,  he  skilfully  veils  his  authority 
under  the  mask  of  exhortation.  Finally  after  a  beau¬ 
tiful  discourse  on  harmony  and  order  and  an  urgent  ap¬ 
peal  for  humility  and  submission,  he  lets  his  authorita¬ 
tive  power  gently  ooze  forth  from  beneath  the  ‘let  us’ 
disguise,  and  very  firmly  and  decisively  bids  the  refrac¬ 
tions  element  of  the  Corinthians  follow  out  his  counsel 
and  exhortation  or  sutler  for  their  disobedience.  He 
reminds  them  too  very  beautifully  and  modestly  that  it 
is  their  duty  to  ‘accept’  his  ‘counsel.’  “But  if  certain 
persons  should  be  disobedient  to  the  words  spoken  by 
Him  through  us,  let  them  understand  that  they  will  en¬ 
tangle  themselves  in  no  slight  transgression  and  danger ; 
but  we  shall  be  guiltless  of  this  sin”  (ch.  59).* 

Cfr.  Lightfoot,  Op.  cit.,  ip.  97.  “  The  third  characteristic  of  the 

writer  is  moderation,  the  sobriety  of  temper  and  reasonableness  of  con¬ 
duct,  which  is  expressed  by  the  word  iTrietKeia,  .  .  .  The  words  eineiK^s, 
iineUeLa,  occur  many  times  in  his  epistle.  In  two  several  passages  the 
substantive  is  qualified  by  a  striking  epithet,  which  seems  to  be  its  con¬ 
tradiction,  €KT€VT]s  iirieiKeia,  ‘  intense  moderation/  The  verbal  paradox 
describes  his  own  character.  This  gentleness  and  equability,  this  ‘  sweet 
resonableness,’  was  a  passion  with  him.” 


19 


If  anyone  dare  disobey  bis  command,  which  he  as 
God’s  representative  has  given  them, — note  well,  as 
God’s  representative,  as  God’s  month-piece,  not  as  the 
mouth-piece  of  the  Eoman  community, — they  will  com¬ 
mit  a  grave  sin  and  run  the  risk  of  losing  their  immortal 
souls ;  Clement,  however,  will  be  free  from  guilt.  He  has 
done  his  duty.  He  has  laid  down  for  them  the  proper 
course  to  pursue.  He  has  made  known  to  them  the  will 
of  God.  Such  language  necessarily  bespeaks  authority. 
Otherwise,  why  should  it  be  a  sin  to  disobey  his  com¬ 
mands?  How  could  he  call  himself  the  representative  of 
God?  Such  language  from  one  who  had  no  authority, 
especially  from  an  outsider  would  be  an  insult  to  the 
Corinthians.  And  the  refractory  party  would  be  the 
first  to  resent  it.  Yet  we  know  of  no  resentment.  On 
the  contrary  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  Clement’s 
letter  had  its  desired  effect,  for  from  the  epistle  of  Dio¬ 
nysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth,  to  Pope  Soter  some  years 
later  we  learn  that  the  letter  of  St.  Clement  was  highly 
prized  by  the  Corinthians.  Today,”  Dionysius  writes, 
^Gve  have  celebrated  the  Lord’s  holy  day,  in  which  we 
have  read  your  Letter.  From  it  whenever  we  read  it, 
we  shall  always  be  able  to  draw  advice,  as  also  from  the 
former  Letter  which  was  wriiten  to  us  by  Clement.” 

Moreover,  in  a  breach  of  discipline  of  this  kind  exhor¬ 
tation  is  not  sufficient  to  restore  order.  Authority  is 
needed,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  authority 
was  not  needed  in  this  particular  case.  St.  Paul  had  to 
intervene  with  an  authoritative  hand  some  years  pre¬ 
vious,  when  party-strifes  were  rife  in  the  Church  of 
Corinth.  If,  as  some  affirm,  any  community  had  the  right 
to  interpose,  how  account  for  the  fact  that  the  Roman 
Church,  and  the  Roman  Church  alone,  really  did  inter¬ 
pose?  There  was,  for  instance,  the  Church  at  Ephesus. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  Eocles.  IV,  23,  11.  Translation  from  Bardenhewer- 
Sliahan,  Patrology,  p.  27. 


20 


It  was  an  older  community.  It  was  close  at  hand.  It 
was  probably  honored  by  St.  John^s  presence.  If  it  had 
the  right  to  intervene,  why  did  it  not  do  so?  Why  did 
it  fail  to  come  to  the  aid  of  a  sister  community,  whose 
interests  would  necessarily  be  closely  allied  to  those  of 
the  neighboring  Church  of  Corinth?  Why  cause  an  un¬ 
necessary  prolongation  of  the  schism  till  an  exhortation 
or  intervention  or  letter  of  brotherly  love  should  come 
from  far-away  Rome,  then  overburdened  with  troubles 
of  its  own?  The  old  traditional  view  of  Catholic  schol¬ 
ars  offers  the  only  satisfactory  solution;  Clement,  as 
Bishop  of  Rome,  as  successor  to  St.  Peter  and  as  Head 

of  all  Christendom,  authoritatively  interposed  in  the  Cor- 

« 

inthian  schism  by  writing  the  so-called  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians. 

The  authoritative  tone  of  the  letter  has  not  escaped 
the  notice  of  some  non-Catholic  critics.  Thus  Gore,  for 
example,  says:  ‘‘If  we  could  get  behind  the  scenes,  we 
should  probably  find  that  the  chief  authority  really  be¬ 
longed  to  him  (Clement),  and  that  he  was  one  of  those 
‘men  of  reputation,’  one  of  those  ‘rulers,’  who  since  the 
Apostles’  death  had  exercised  that  part  of  their  ministry 
which  was  to  become  permanent  in  the  Church.”  Dr. 
Middleton  goes  even  further.  In  his  recent  work  on 
Unity  and  Eome,  he  accepts  the  viewpoint  of  Catholic 
critics.  He  acknowledges  Clement’s  jurisdiction,  assert¬ 
ing  that  the  epistle  of  Clement  “was  not  in  any  sense 
gratuitous  or  intrusive.”  “Even  at  that  early  day  in 
the  history  of  the  Church,”  he  states,  “the  distracted 
Christians  at  Corinth  turned  naturally  to  the  Apostolic 
See  for  guidance  and  help.”  “What,”  he  exclaims, 
“would  be  the  plain  interpretation  of  this  epistle  of 
Clement  of  Rome,  if  the  exigencies  of  Protestant  Chris¬ 
tians  to  bolster  up  their  doctrinal  positions  did  not  color 
their  opinions?  Reading  these  passages  from  Clement 


The  Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  (1889),  p.  325. 


21 


with  charity  and  justice  their  witness  for  the  Unity  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  Church  and  paternal  solicitude  of  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter  for  all  the  Churches,  given  and 
accorded,  seems  very  clear.” 

b)  The  Letter  an  Excellent  Proof  of  the  Divine  Author¬ 
ity  of  the  Bishops. 

Not  only  is  the  letter  of  'St.  Clement  written  with  a 
tone  of  authority  that  commands  obedience  under  pen¬ 
alty  of  divine  punishment,  but  it  also  bears  witness,  that 
the  lawful  authorities  in  the  local  churches  rule  and 
teach  by  divine  right. 

In  chapter  42  there  is  a  classical  passage  for  the  divine 
institution  of  the  episcopate.  Clement  says:  ^^The 
Apostles  received  the  Gospel  for  us  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ;  Jesus  Christ  was  sent  forth  from  God.  So  then 
Christ  is  from  God,  and  the  Apostles  are  from  Christ. 
Both  therefore  came  of  the  will  of  God  in  the  appointed 
order.  Having  therefore  received  a  charge,  and  having 
been  fully  assured  through  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  and  confirmed  in  the  word  of  God  with  full 
assurance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  went  forth  with  the 
glad  tidings  that  the  kingdom  of  God  should  come.  So 
preaching  everywhere  in  country  and  town,  they  ap¬ 
pointed  their  first-fruits  when  they  had  proved  them  by 
the  Spirit,  to  be  bishops  and  deacons  unto  them  that 
should  believe.  And  this  they  did  in  no  new  fashion; 
for  indeed  it  had  been  written  concerning  bishops  and 
deacons  from  very  ancient  times;  for  thus  saith  the 
scripture  in  a  certain  place,  1  will  appoint  their  bishops 
in  righteousness  and  their  deacons  in  faith^^  (ch.  42). 

These  words  are  a  plain,  straightforward  testimony  in 
favor  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  bishops.  The  Apos- 

Unity  and  Rome,  (1922),  p.  99. 

The  translations  in  this  chapter  from  St.  iClement’s  epistle  are  taken 
from  Lightfoot’s  Apostolic  Fathers-,  also  the  translations  from  the  Igna- 
tian  letters  and  from  the  epistle  of  St.  Polycarp,  in  the  following  chapters. 


22 


ties  are  from  Christ,  the  bishops  from  the  Apostles. 
‘^Both  therefore  came  of  the  will  of  God  in  the  appointed 
order.  ...  So  preaching  everywhere  in  country  and 
town,  they  appointed  their  first-fruits  (fcara  ovv  kuI 

TToXet?  /cr)pV(TcrovT€<;  KaOiaravov  ra?  aiTap')(a^  avroiv)  when  they 
had  proved  them  to  be  bishops  and  deacons  unto  them 
that  should  believe  (et?  eVto-zcoTrou?  Ka\  hiaKovov^  ro)v  fjieWov- 
Tcov  TTLo-Teveiv).’’  According  to  Clement  the  Apostles  were 
directly  commissioned  by  Christ  to  preach  the  Gospel, 
the  bishops  indirectly  in  as  far  as  they  received  their 
appointment  from  the  Apostles,  but  notwithstanding 
they  have  the  same  divine  authority.  They  have  the 
same  right  to  rule,  the  same  right  to  teach,  and  therefore, 
in  virtue  of  this  divine  prerogative  they  cannot  be  de¬ 
posed  by  the  faithful.  The  words  are  in  truth,  as  Moran 
remarks,  ^  ‘  a  fitting  commentary  of  the  words  of  St.  Paul : 
‘The  Holy  Ghost  has  placed  you  overseers  to  rule  the 
Church  of  God.’  ” 

Pfleiderer,  commenting  on  the  words  of  Clement,  says : 
“Clement’s  idea  (xlii.  4)  that  the  Apostles,  on  their  mis¬ 
sionary  journeys,  themselves  appointed  the  first  bishops 
and  deacons  (which  is  certainly  not  the  fact),  already 
shows  the  beginning  of  the  tendency  to  make  the  bishop’s 
office,  as  the  direct  continuation  of  the  apostolate,  the 
depositary  of  tradition  and  to  surround  it  with  the  nim¬ 
bus  of  higher  authority.  ’  ’ 

According  to  him  Clement  either  must  have  been  mis¬ 
taken,  or  he  must  have  wanted  to  deceive  the  people. 
But  Clement  in  view  of  his  intimacy  with  the  Apostles 
and  his  prominent  position  in  the  Church  could  hardly 
have  been  mistaken.  He  had  associated  with  the  Apos¬ 
tles  themselves.  One  can  hardly  suppose,  therefore,  that 
he  did  not  know  their  teaching  and  their  mode  of  acting. 
Besides,  as  Bishop  of  Pome,  the  queen  and  mistress  of 

The  Government  of  the  Church  in  the  First  Century  (1913'),  p.  102. 

Primitive  Christianity  (1906-1911),  translated  by  Montgomery,  Vol. 
IV,  p.  358. 


23 


the  world  at  that  time,  to  which  city  people  gathered 
from  almost  every  quarter  of  the  globe,  Clement  came 
into  contact  with  Christians  from  every  country.  These 
would  quite  naturally  inform  him  of  the  thing  nearest 
and  dearest  to  his  heart,  the  growth  and  spread  of  Chris¬ 
tianity.  Hence,  he  must  have  been  well  informed  on  all 
matters  pertaining  to  the  early  Church. 

There  is  little  probability,  therefore,  that  Clement  was 
mistaken;  there  is  still  less  probability,  that  he  wished 
to  deceive  the  people.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason 
to  suspect  that  Clement  was  trying  to  foist  something 
new  upon  the  faithful.  Deceit  and  imposture  were  for¬ 
eign  to  his  noble  character.  He  was  a  saintly,  an  humble 
and  a  modest  man.  The  one  characteristic  resplendent 
throughout  his  letter  is  sincerity.  He  is  convinced  that 
every  word,  he  utters,  is  true. 

Falsehood  in  this  case  would  defeat  his  purpose.  The 
Corinthians  knew  full  well  what  the  Apostles  had  taught 
and  done.  Their  words  and  their  deeds  were  household 
words  on  the  lips  of  the  early  Christians.  They  could 
not  be  deceived  so  easily,  especially  regarding  so  import¬ 
ant  a  point,  a  point  that  involved  a  radical  change  in  the 
very  constitution  of  the  Church.  Had  the  Bishop  of 
Eome  tried  to  introduce  something  new,  the  Corinthians 
would  have  noticed  it  immediately,  and  would  have  re¬ 
sented  it.  The  very  thought  of  anything  novel,  or  any¬ 
thing  different  from  what  they  had  learned  from  the 
Apostles,  was  repugnant  to  them. 

Besides,  Clement  would  be  the  last  person  to  introduce 
anything  new.  He  was  a  conservative  of  conservatives. 
He  was  noted  for  his  scrupulous  tenacity  for  the  apos¬ 
tolic  doctrines  and  customs.  Hence,  when  he  expresses 
himself  on  things  apostolic,  he  has  every  claim  to  cre¬ 
dence.  And  we  have  all  the  more  reason  to  accept  his 
words,  as  true,  when  we  see  that  they  agree  exactly  with 
the  evidence  of  contemporary  and  later  writers. 


24 


c)  An  Argument  for  the  Apostolic  Succession. 

In  chapter  42  the  apostolic  succession  is  clearly  indi¬ 
cated, — ^Christ;  the  Apostles,  and  their  successors,  the 
bishops, — hut  it  is  brought  out  more  forcibly  in  chapter 
44,  where  Clement  says:  /‘And  our  Apostles  knew 
through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  that  there  would  be  strife 
over  the  name  of  the  bishop’s  office.  'For  this  cause 
therefore,  having  received  complete  foreknowledge,  they 
appointed  the  aforesaid  persons  {tcaria-TT^aav  tou?  Trpoeipr]- 
yLteVov?),  and  afterwards  they  provided  a  continuance 
(^Kal  fiera^v  iiripLov^v  {e7rLv6p,r)v)  BeSco/cacrLv),  that  if  these 
should  fall  asleep,  other  approved  men  should  succeed  to 
their  ministration.  Those  therefore  who  were  apppoint- 
ed  by  them,  or  afterward  by  other  men  of  repute  with  the 
consent  of  the  whole  Church  {rov^  ovv  /caracrTa^eWa?  vir’ 
eKeCvcov  ^  puera^v  vcf)^  erepcov  eWo^lp^wv  avhpoiv,  avvevSofcijadcn]'^ 

iicic\r)a(a^  TraV?;?),  and  have  ministered  unblameably  to 
the  flock  of  Christ  in  lowliness  of  mind,  peacefully  and 
with  all  modesty,  and  for  long  time  have  borne  a  good 
report  with  all — these  men  we  consider  to  be  unjustly 
thrust  out  from  their  ministration.  For  it  will  be  no 
light  sin  for  us,  if  we  thrust  out  those  who  have  offered 
the  gifts  of  the  bishop’s  office  unblameably  and  holily” 
(ch.  44). 

The  text  is  so  clear  that  it  needs  no  further  comment. 
“They  (namely,  the  Apostles)  appointed  the  aforesaid 
persons  (namely,  the  bishops)  and  afterwards  they  pro¬ 
vided  a  continuance  that  if  these  should  fall  asleep  other 
approved  men  should  succeed  to  their  ministration.” 
The  Apostles  appointed  the  bishops  as  their  successors 
and  provided  that  these  in  turn  appoint  other  approved 
men  to  succeed  themselves.  “Clearly,”  says  Marsh,  “the 
writer  has  no  doubt  concerning  the  divine  origin  of  the 
ministry  or  the  necessity  of  preserving  the  apostolic  suc¬ 
cession.” 

Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  219. 


25 


Banr,  the  most  radical  of  critics,  referring  to  this  pas¬ 
sage  of  Clement  says:  ^‘It  is  merely  a  wish  to  give  to 
the  congregational  constitution  which  existed  in  his  time 
the  sanction  of  apostolic  authority  which  leads  Clement 
to  say,  ch.  44,  that  the  Apostles  knew  that  there  would 
be  strife  concerning  the  name  of  the  eVto-zcoTr?}.’ ’  It  is 
hard  to  see  how  anyone  can  read  this  meaning  into  the 
words.  The  context  shows  that  Clement  means  the  very 
opposite.  He  is  admonishing  the  rebellions  Corinthians 
who  deposed  their  lawful  superiors.  He  reminds  them 
that  these  superiors  have  received  a  divine  appointment, 
an  appointment  coming  from  Christ  through  the  Apostles 
and  their  successors.  He  wishes  to  say.  You  have  no 
right  whatsoever  to  interfere  with  your  ecclesiastical 
superiors  or  with  their  appointment.  The  Apostles  pro¬ 
vided  for  that.  They  appointed  their  successors  and 
commissioned  these  to  appoint  other  men  to  succeed  them 
and  so  on.  And  for  you  to  depose  these  lawfully  and 
divinely  constituted  officials  is  no  light  sin.  Clement 
^Hases  his  principle,’’  writes  McGitfert,  ^‘not  upon  cus¬ 
tom  or  expediency,  or  anything  of  the  kind  but  upon  the 
will  of  God.  God  sent  forth  Jesus  Christ,  Christ  sent 
forth  the  Apostles,  and  they  in  turn  appointed  bishops 
and  deacons,  so  that  the  bishops  and  deacons  hold  their 
office  by  divine  right.  ’  ’ 

d)  No  Argument  for  Congregational  Government. 

Baur  allows  himself  to  be  influenced  by  his  congrega¬ 
tional  theory.  He  says :  Those  who  had  been  instituted 
at  first  by  the  Apostles  or  afterwards  by  other  notable 
men,  with  the  approval  of  the  whole  congregation,  and 
had  blamelessly  performed  their  service  to  the  Lord’s 
flock,  could  not,  it  is  urged,  be  justly  removed  from  their 

The  Church  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries,  translated  by  Men- 
zies,  (187:8-1879),  Vol.  II,  p.  19. 

History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic  Age  (1905),  p.  669-670. 


26 


ministry  (their  XeLTovpyLa  or  as  it  is  called  directly  after¬ 
wards,  the  i'TTLO-KOTTTjj  {.  c.,  the  office  of  the  irpea^vrepOi). 
According  to  this,  both  the  i\\6yLp.ot  dvSpe^  and  the  Trdaa 
iKKXrjaia  took  part  in  the  elections  to  the  church  offices. 
The  more  influential  members  of  the  congregation  con¬ 
ducted  the  election  and  proposed  the  names  which  were 
accepted  only  if  the  congregation  assented.  Since  those 
called  ‘notables’  are  not  clerical  persons,  it  is  still  the 
congregation  with  whom  the  right  of  election  rests  and 
the  original  conception  to  which  these  first  beginnings 
of  the  whole  future  hierarchy  lead  us  back  is  unquestion¬ 
ably  congregational  self-government.”^^ 

Baur  says,  the  ‘notables’  were  not  clerical  persons. 
The  letter,  however,  does  not  state  this.  On  the  contrary 
from  the  whole  context  it  is  quite  certain,  that  they  ivere 
clerical  persons,  because  they  are  placed  in  the  same 
category  as  the  Apostles  and  their  successors.  “Those 
therefore,”  Clement  writes,  “who  were  appointed  by 
them  (namely,  the  Apostles  or  the  successors  of  the 
Apostles),  or  afterwards  by  other  men  of  repute  with 
the  consent  of  the  whole  Church.”  Like  the  Apostles 
and  their  successors  they  had  a  right  to  appoint  bishops. 

There  is  nothing  said  of  the  election  of  ecclesiastical 
officials.  How,  then,  can  Baur  declare  that  “the  more 
influential  members  of  the  congregation  conducted  the 
election  and  proposed  the  names  which  were  accepted 
only  if  the  congregation  assented  Clement  plainly 
says  in  several  places  that  the  bishops  were  appointed. 
There  can  be  no  mistake  about  his  words.  “They  (the 
Apostles)  appointed  their  first  fruits  ...  to  be  bishops 
and  deacons  to  them  that  should  believe”  (ch.  42). 
“They  (the  Apostles)  appointed  the  aforesaid  persons. 
Those  therefore  who  were  appointed  by  them”  (ch.  44). 

KaOiaravov”  KarecrTTjo-av,’^  KaTaaraOevTa^j  the  expressions 
used  in  the  respective  passages,  can  only  mean  ‘appoint.’ 

Op.  cit.,  Vol.  II,  p.  19. 


27 


The  words  ‘‘with  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church’^ 
are  by  no  means  an  argument  for  community-govern¬ 
ment.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  several  citations  above 
show,  that  it  was  appointment  by  the  Apostles  or  their 
legitimate  successors  that  constituted  an  official  of  the 
Church. 

^^With  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church^’  is,  moreover, 
a  vague,  indefinite  expression.  It  means,  perhaps,  that 
the  people  selected  the  candidates  for  ecclesiastical  office. 
In  the  early  days  of  the  Church  this  privilege  was  ac¬ 
corded  some  communities.  There  is  an  instance  of  this 
procedure  in  the  Acts  vi,  2-6.  “Then  the  twelve  calling 
together  the  multitude  of  the  disciples,  said:  It  is  not 
reason  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of  Grod  and  serve 
tables.  Wherefore,  brethren,  look  ye  out  among  you 
seven  men  of  good  reputation,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
wisdom,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  business.  But 
we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer,  and  to  the 
ministry  of  the  word.  And  the  saying  was  liked  by  all 
the  multitude.  And  they  chose  Stephen,  a  man  full  of 
faith,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  Philip,”  etc.  “These 
they  set  before  the  Apostles ;  and  they  praying,  imposed 
hands  upon  them, — OV?  ea-Trja-av  ivcoinov  TO)v  airocTToXcov,  koli 
Trpoaev^dfievot  eTredrjKav  avTol^;  Ta<:  The  community  at 

the  bidding  of  the  Apostles  chose  the  candidates,  the 
Apostles  ordained  them.  It  was  not  the  selection  by  the 
community,  but  the  appointment  by  the  Apostles  and  the 
imposition  of  hands  that  constituted  them  officials  of  the 
Church. 

That  appointment  by  ecclesiastical  authority  was  the 
method  of  instituting  hierarchs  in  the  Church  is  evident 
from  Acts  xiv,  22:  “And  when  they  (namely,  Paul  and 
Barnabas)  had  ordained  {x^tpoTovijo-avre^)  to  them  priests 
in  every  church  and  had  prayed  with  fasting,  they  com¬ 
mended  them  to  the  Lord,  in  whom  they  believed.  ’  ^  He 
refers  to  this  appointment  again  in  chapter  xx,  28,  where 
he  admonishes  the  Elders:  “Take  heed  to  yourselves 
3 


28 


and  to  the  whole  flock,  wherein  the  Holy  G-host  hath 
placed  {eOero  e7ri(7/co7rou?)  yon  Mshops,  to  rifle  the  Church 
of  Godfl’ 

In  the  Pastoral  Letters  he  brings  out  the  same  fact. 
"Writing  to  Timothy  he  says:  ^‘Neglect  not  the  grace 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with 
imposition  of  the  hands  of  the  priesthood  eVt^eVeo)? 

T03V  Tov  irpea^vreplov) ‘‘Impose  not  hands 

lightly  on  any  man,’’  he  says  in  another  place.^^  And 
again:  “For  which  cause  I  admonish  thee,  that  thou  stir 
up  the  grace  of  Grod  which  is  in  thee,  by  the  imposition 
of  my  hands.”  To  Titus  he  speaks  in  a  similar  strain: 
“For  this  cause  I  left  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldst 
set  in  order  the  things  that  are  wanting  and  shouldst 
ordain  priests  {fcarao-Trjcrr)^  .  .  .  Trpecr^vrepov^;)  in  every 
city,  as  I  also  appointed  thee  (5teTa|cr>7;v)  Besides 
no  mention  is  made  in  the  letters  of  community-govern¬ 
ment. 

If  the  community  of  Pome  or  of  Corinth  enjoyed  self- 
government,  it  would  be  indicated  in  other  parts  of  the 
letter.  However,  there  are  no  indications  of  autonomy 
or  complete  authority  of  the  community.  The  passage  in 
chapter  54  where  Clement  exhorts  the  more  noble-minded 
of  the  disturbers  to  give  in  and  say:  “I  do  that  which 
is  ordered  by  the  people  (ttolo)  ra  'irpoaraacropLeva  VTTO  TOV 
”  can  hardly  be  taken  as  an  argument  for  com¬ 
munity-sovereignty.  Amid  the  general  disorder  and 
revolt  it  is  plain  that  not  the  presbyters  threatened  with 
deposition,  but  only  the  people  as  a  whole  would  be  able 
to  judge  the  disturbers  of  peace.  But  out  of  this  parti¬ 
cular  concrete  case,  one  would  hardly  construct  a  general 
law  for  the  whole  Church. 


I  Tim.  iv,  14. 
I  Tim.  V,  22. 


II  Tim.  i,  6. 
Tit.  i,  5. 


29 


e)  The  Teaching  Authority  of  the  Bishops. 

It  is  obvious  from  the  epistle  of  St.  Clement,  that  it 
vras  not  the  community  that  vras  vested  vrith  authority, 
but  the  bishops,  the  divinely  appointed  successors  of  the 
Apostles.  Xot  only  were  they  vested  with  the  power  to 
rule,  but  thev  were  also  the  divinelv  established  teachers 

7  %r 

of  the  Word.  St.  Clement,  of  course,  stresses  their  rul¬ 
ing  power.  He  is  dealing  with  a  disciplinary  question 
and  it  was  but  natural  that  he  emphasize  this  point.  But 
in  bringing  out  their  ruling  authority,  he  also  bears 
witness  to  their  teaching  power,  for  the  two  are  inti¬ 
mately  associated.  The  one  is  the  safe^iard  of  the  other. 

Moreover  in  chapter  42  their  teaching  authority  is 
quite  clearly  indicated.  ‘‘So  preaching  everywhere  in 
country  and  town,  they  appointed  their  first-fruits  .  .  . 
to  be  bishops  and  deacons  unto  them  that  should  be¬ 
lieve.’’  The  Apostles  were  charged  by  Christ  to  preach 
the  Gospel.  They  appointed  bishops  and  deacons  to 
assist  them  in  this  work,  and  to  continue  it  after  their 
death.  Like  the  Apostles  they  too  were  ministers  of 
the  Word.  Hence,  it  is  wrong  to  say  that  the  presbyter- 
bishops  mentioned  in  the  Clementine  letter  are  only 
administrative  officials.  “Their  position  as  spiritual 
guides  (43,  1),”  as  Borkowski  remarks,  “and  successors 
of  the  Apostles  manifests  clearly  their  authoritative 
office  of  administering  the  Word  of  God.”  They  were 
in  every  sense  of  the  word  the  authorized  teachers  of  the 
Church. 


**Loc.  cit.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  337. 


CHAPTER  II. 


The  Didaohe. 

1.  As  a  Testimony.  , 

The  Didache  is  one  of  the  oldest  documents  of  Chris¬ 
tian  antiquity.  Dr.  Schatf  styles  it  the  ‘^oldest  Church 
Manual.’’^  The  Didache  or  Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles  was  brought  to  light  in  1883  A.  D.  by  Bryennios, 
the  Greek  orthodox  Metropolitan  of  Nicomedia.  The 
work  .was  found  together  with  other  treatises  in  the  Jeru¬ 
salem  Codex.  According  to  the  subscription  this  codex 
was  written  in  the  year  1056  A.  D.  by  the  hand  of  Leo  or 
Leon,  a  notary. 

The  title  of  the  treatise  is  AtSaxv  rcov  ScoSeKa  'Kiroaro- 
\(ov  ^‘The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.”  Barden- 
hewer,  however,  thinks  that  the  original  and  complete 
title  is  the  one  given  in  the  manuscript  found  by  Bryen¬ 
nios  :  AiSaxv  }^vp{ov  hla  to)v  hdiheKa  ' AiroaroXcov  rot?  edvecnv 
4<The  Teaching  of  the  Lord  through  the  'Pwelve  Apostles 
to  the  Nations.”  ^ 

This  heading  suggests  the  purpose  of  the  writing.  It 
was  to  give  in  an  abridged  form  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
Christ  as  preached  by  the  Apostles  to  the  Gentiles.  The 
work  may  be  best  characterized  as  an  ancient  Church 
ritual.  The  first  ten  chapters  comprise  liturgical  pre¬ 
cepts  ;  the  last  six  are  of  a  canonical  nature.  These  latter 
comprise  instructions  concerning  the  ministry  and  regu¬ 
lations  for  Christian  worship. 

The  author  of  the  Didache  is  not  known,  nor  is  there 

The  Didache  (18S9,  3rd  ed.),  p.  1.  Bardenhewer  styles  it,  Das  alt- 
este  aller  nachbiblischen  Literaturdenkmaler  des  Christentums,”  Op.  cit., 
Vol.  I,  p.  90. 

®  Op.  cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  01. 

30 


any  way  of  ascertaining  his  name.  Some  are  of  the 
opinion  that  he  was  one  of  the  early  prophets.^ 

The  place  of  composition  is,  likewise,  a  matter  of  con¬ 
jecture.  Some  believe  it  was  written  in  Egypt;  others, 
and  their  opinion  seems  the  more  probable,  think  that  it 
was  composed  in  Syria  or  Palestine.  The  arguments, 
however,  for  both  sides  are  weak.  In  all  three  places  the 
work  was  held  in  the  highest  esteem.  Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria  quotes  it  as  the  word  of  God  f  Athanasius  recom¬ 
mends  it  to  the  catechumens  along  with  some  other  books 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  ^  and  Eusebius  enumerates  it 
among  the  apocryphal  works  of  the  New  Testament.® 

A  greater  difficulty,  and  one  of  far  more  importance,  is 
the  time  of  composition.  It  has  been  assigned  to  every 
decade  from  the  year  50-190  A.  D.  Some  even  put  it  at  a 
later  date,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  the  work  was  known  to 
Clement  of  Alexandria.  There  are  only  a  few,  however, 
who  assign  it  to  a  period  outside  of  the  years  70-165.  And 
within  this  period,  the  stronger  evidence  points  to  the 
last  decades  of  the  first  century.'^  The  Didache  reveals  a 
very  primitive  state  of  Church  organization.  The  Gospel 
is  still  preached  by  itinerant  ministers;  no  mention  is 
made  of  a  monarchical  bishop ;  the  rites  of  Baptism  and 
Holy  Eucharist  show  an  early  stage  of  development ;  nor 


®  Borkowski,  Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  VII,  p.  336,  says,  the  author 
was  apparently  a  teacher  or  a  prophet. 

^  Strom.,  I,  20,  100. 

®  Ep.  festal.,  39. 

®  Hist.  Eccles.,  Ill,  25,  4. 

^  The  majority  of  critics  seem  to  favor  the  last  part  of  the  first  or,  at 
the  latesit,  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  Thus  Bardenhewer  {op. 
cit.,  Vol.  I,  p.  93)  assigns  it  to  the  end  of  the  first  century;  Funk,  F.  X., 
Doctrima  Duodecim  Apostolorum  (1887),  p.  xxxi-xxxvi,  between  the  years 
80-120;  Lightfoot,  Expositor,  1885,  p.  l-^Il,  between  80-110;  Schaff,  loc.  cit., 
p.  119,  90-100;  Zahn,  Forschungen  zur  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen 
Kanons  und  der  altkirchlichen  Literatur,  (1884),  3ter  Theil,  p.  304,  80- 
130;  Batiffol,  Primitive  Catholicism,  (1911),  p.  105,  places  it  in  the  last 
decades  of  the  first  century;  Sanday,  Expositor,  3rd  Ser.,  V,  p.  107,  ca. 


32 


is  anything  said  of  heresy.  All  this  points  to  the  first 
rather  than  to  the  second  century.  As  Dr.  Lightfoot  re¬ 
marks,  “the  archaic  simplicity  of  its  practical  suggestions 
is  only  consistent  with  the  early  infancy  of  the  Church.’^® 
Even  Prof.  Harnack  recognizes  this  primitive  state  of 
affairs.  Without  doubt,  he  says,  the  Didache  manifests 
a  number  of  marks,  which,  according  to  our  former  knowl¬ 
edge  of  things,  agrees  better  with  the  period  80-120  than 
120-160.  What  it  says,  for  example,  about  the  apostles, 
prophets  and  teachers,  is,  compared  with  Clement,  Poly¬ 
carp,  Hermas,  Justin,  to  say  nothing  of  Ignatius,  much 
older,  and  has  to  be  placed  near  the  Pauline  time.® 

But,  notwithstanding,  Harnack  sees  reasons,  which  he 
believes,  warrant  a  date  as  late  as  135-160.  He  says, 
there  are  indications  in  the  Didache,  which  show  that 
several  generations  have  already  passed  away.  1.  Cor¬ 
ruption  has  broken  out  among  the  apostles  and  prophets. 
2.  The  prestige  of  the  prophets  is  on  the  decline.  3.  The 
text  (in  the  “Two  Ways,^’  ch.  1)  shows  certain  modifica¬ 
tions  of  the  evangelical  demands,  and  in  the  appendage 
to  the  same  (ch.  6),  distinguishes  a  higher  and  a  lower 
morality.  4.  The  insistance  on  the  otfering  of  the  first- 
fruits,  of  a  fixed  order  for  prayer  and  fasting  in  a  pagan- 
Gentile  territory  is  the  sign  of  a  later  time.  5.  What  the 
author  says  about  the  bishops  and  deacons,  namely,  that 
they  perform  the  service  of  the  prophets  and  teachers 
and  are  to  be  honored  along  with  these,  cannot  be  the 
original  status.^®  However,  the  greater  number  of  critics 


®  The  Apostlic  Fathers,  (1912),  p.  216. 

°  Realencyklopadie  f.  prot.  Theol.  u.  Ki/rche  (1896),  I.  Bd.,  p.  721-722: 
“ UiLzweifelhafit  zeigt  sie  (Didache)  eine  Reihe  von  Merkmalen,  die  nach 
unserer  bisherigen  Kenntnis  der  Dinge  sich  besser  in  die  Zeit  zwischen 
80-120,  als  zwischen  120-160  fiigen.  ,Was  sie  z.  B.  iiber  Apostel,  Propheten 
und  Lehrer  sagt,  ist  gemessen  an  Clemens,  Polycarp,  Hermas,  Justin — 
von  Ignatius  zu  schweigen — vielaltiimlicher  und  hat  seine  Stelle  nahe  bei 
der  paulinschen  Zeit  zu  erhalten.” 

^0  Realencyklopadie  f.  prot.  Theol.  u.  Kirche,  I.  Bd.,  p.  721-722.  Harnack 
gives  several  other  reasons,  but  the  abovementioned  are  the  more  impor- 


33 


do  not  consider  Harnack’s  reasons  for  a  late  date  weighty 
enough  to  otfset  the  arguments  in  favor  of  an  earlier 
period. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Didache  is  an  important 
work,  and  that  it  furnishes  useful  information  on  the  his¬ 
tory  of  the  primitive  Church.  But  the  work  is  shrouded 
in  no  little  obscurity.  It  is  difficult,  therefore,  to  under¬ 
stand  how  some  critics  can  attach  undue  importance  to  it. 
Yet  some  have  made  it  the  foundation  for  their  theories 
on  the  origin  of  Church-organization.  They  think,  they 
find  in  it  evidence  of  absolute  certainty. 

Harnack,  for  instance,  believes  the  recovery  of  the 
Didache  the  most  important  find  of  the  last  epoch,  since  it 
gives  the  solution  for  the  origin  of  the  Catholic  hier¬ 
archy.^^  Sanday  calls  it  the  master-key^’  which  alone 
fits  all  the  wards  of  the  historical  problem.^^  Harris  says, 
it. contains  ‘^the  missing  links.”  ‘Ht  has  bridged  the 
chasm  between  the  Synagogue  and  the  Church,  between 
the  Presbyterate  and  the  Episcopate,  between  the  Jew 
and  the  Christian  and  between  the  Christian  and  the 
Montanist.  ’ 

It  is  on  the  Didache  that  Harnack  builds  up  his  com¬ 
bination-theory,  a  theory,  which  discredits  the  divine 
origin  of  the  episcopacy,  makes  its  teaching  authority 
the  necessary  outcome  of  circumstances,  and  stamps  the 
apostolic  succession,  that  great  guarantee  of  ecclesiastical 
authority,  as  the  invention  of  ambitious  bishops.  Har¬ 
nack  thus  undermines  the  very  foundation  of  the  Catholic 
rule  of  faith. 


tant  ones.  Miinchen  in  his  article  “  Die  Lehre  der  Zioolf  Apostel  ”  in  the 
Zeitschrift  fur  katholische  Theologie,  (1886),  p.  629-676  has  refuted  in 
detail  Harnack’s  arguments. 

Die  Lehre  der  Zwolf  Apostel,  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen,  (1893), 
II.  Bd.,  p.  141. 

Expositor,  3rd  Ser.,  Vol.  5,  p.  106. 

Expositor,  3rd  Ser.,  Vol.  5,  p.  2i26. 


34 


2.  Rule  of  Faith  in  the  Didache. 

Although  Protestant  critics  have  made  much  of  the 
Didache,  still  it  is  noteworthy  that  they  can  find  no  evi¬ 
dence  in  it  for  their  rule  of  faith.  Nothing  is  more  foreign 
to  the  author  of  the  Didache  .than  private  interpretation. 
Nor  does  he  give  the  slightest  suggestion  that  Scripture 
is  the  sole  standard  of  belief.  Non-Catholic  critics  seem  to 
overlook  this  point.  Yet  it  is  an  important  bit  of  evi¬ 
dence  against  them. 

On  the  other  hand  we  find  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
Catholic  viewpoint.  The  whole  work  is  in  fact  an  argu¬ 
ment  for  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith.  The  purpose  of  the 
writer  is  to  give  the  teaching  of  the  twelve  Apostles,  and 
not  the  religious  views  of  any  and  every  teacher.  He 
gives  the  apostolic  doctrine  at  some  length.  Then  he 
warns  the  faithful  against  false  teachers.  He  wants  to 
preclude  private  interpretations.  Therefore,  he  bids  the 
Christians  receive  only  those  who  teach  the  doctrine  in¬ 
culcated  in  the  Didache,  in  other  words,  the  apostolic 
doctrine,  and  reject  those  who  teach  a  contrary  doctrine. 
‘‘Whosoever  therefore  shall  come  and  teach  you  all  these 
things  that  have  been  said  before,  receive  him ;  but  if  the 
teacher  himself  be  perverted  and  teach  a  different  doc¬ 
trine  to  the  destruction  thereof,  hear  him  not;  but  if  to 
the  increase  of  righteousness  and  the  knowledge  of  the 
Lord,  receive  him  as  the  Lord’’  (ch.  11). 

So  solicitous  is  the  author  on  this  point,  that  he  even 
gives  minute  instructions  according  to  which  they  may 
know  the  true  from  the  false  prophet  and  teacher.  “But 
concerning  the  apostles  and  prophets,  so  do  ye  according 
to  the  ordinance  of  the  Gospel.  Let  every  apostle,  Avhen 
he  cometh  to  you,  be  received  as  the  Lord ;  but  he  shall  not 
abide  more  than  a  single  day,  or  if  there  be  need  a  second 
likewise ;  but  if  he  abide  three  days,  he  is  a  false  prophet. 
And  when  he  departeth,  let  the  apostle  receive  nothing 
save  bread,  until  he  findeth  shelter ;  but  if  he  ask  money. 


35 


he  is  a  false  prophet.  And  any  prophet  speaking  in  the 
Spirit  ye  shall  not  try  neither  discern ;  for  every  sin  shall 
be  forgiven,  but  this  sin  shall  not  be  forgiven.  Yet  not 
every  one  that  speaketh  in  the  Spirit  is  a  prophet,  but 
only  if  he  have  the  ways  of  the  Lord.  From  his  ways 
therefore  the  false  prophet  and  the  prophet  shall  be 
recognized.  And  no  prophet  when  he  ordereth  a  table 
in  the  Spirit  shall  eat  of  it;  otherwise  he  is  a  false 
prophet.  And  every  prophet  teaching  the  truth,  if  he 
doeth  not  what  he  teacheth,  is  a  false  prophet.  And  every 
prophet  approved  and  found  true,  if  he  doeth  ought  as  an 
outward  mystery  typical  of  the  Church,  and  yet  teacheth 
you  not  to  do  all  that  he  himself  doeth,  shall  not  be  judged 
before  you ;  he  hath  his  judgment  in  the  presence  of  God ; 
for  in  like  manner  also  did  the  prophets  of  old  time.  And 
whosoever  shall  say  in  the  Spirit,  Give  me  silver  or  any¬ 
thing  else,  ye  shall  not  listen  to  him ;  but  if  he  tell  you  to 
give  on  behalf  of  others  that  are  in  want,  let  no  man 
judge  him”  (ch.  11). 

Do  not  these  words  imply  that  the  travelling  ministers 
were  subject  to  a  higher  authority?  The  author  lays  down 
very  minute  rules  controlling  their  doctrine  and  their  con¬ 
duct.  They  were  not  free  to  propound  whatsoever  teach¬ 
ing  they  chose,  nor  were  they  at  liberty  to  propagate  their 
own  private  theories  and  speculations.  They  had  to  teach 
the  doctrine  handed  down  by  the  Apostles,  and  the  faith¬ 
ful  had  a  definite  norm  by  which  they  might  know  whether 
or  not  the  itinerant  preachers  were  doing  so. 

These  rules  for  the  travelling  ministers,  strange  as  they 
may  seem  to  us,  were  necessary  in  those  days.  The  early 
missionaries  after  the  manner  of  the  Twelve  went  from 
place  to  place  proclaiming  the  glad  tidings.  False  teach¬ 
ers  crept  in  among  them.  These,  under  the  guise  of  truth 
and  eager  to  spread  their  insidious  teaching  and  at  the 
same  time  obtain  a  comfortable  livelihood,  tried  to  pose 
as  true  prophets.  How  were  the  infant  communities  just 
initiated  into  the  faith  to  know  the  true  from  the  false  ? 


36 


A  safeguard  was  needed  for  the  faithful.  This  safeguard 
is  found  in  the  rules  of  the  Didache. 

According  to  these  rules,  if  the  evangelists  are  found 
to  be  true  preachers  of  the  Word,  they  are  to  be  received 
as  the  Lord  himself  and  to  be  accorded  the  means  of  sup¬ 
port  during  their  sojourn  in  the  various  communities. 
^  ‘  But  every  true  prophet  desiring  to  settle  among  you  is 
worthy  of  his  food.  In  like  manner  a  true  teacher  is  also 
ivorthy,  like  the  workman^  of  his  food.  Every  firstfruit 
then  of  the  produce  of  the  wine-vat  and  of  the  threshing- 
floor,  of  thy  oxen  and  of  thy  sheep,  thou  shalt  take  and 
give  as  the  firstfruit  to  the  prophets;  for  they  are  your 
chief-priests.  But  if  ye  have  not  a  prophet,  give  them  to 
the  poor.  If  thou  makest  bread,  take  the  firstfruit  and 
give  according  to  the  commandment.  In  like  manner, 
when  thou  openest  a  jar  of  wine  or  of  oil,  take  the  first¬ 
fruit  and  give  to  the  prophets;  yea  and  of  money  and 
raiment  and  every  possession  take  the  firstfruit,  as  shall 
seem  good  to  thee,  and  give  according  to  the  command¬ 
ment’’  (ch.  13). 

Harnack  and  some  others  are  inclined  to  exaggerate 
the  prominence  of  the  early  itinerant  preachers.^^  All 
that  can  be  concluded  from  the  Didache,  however,  is  that 
the  apostles,  prophets  and  teachers  were  ministers  of  the 
Word,  that  they  were  to  be  honored  and  that  they  were  to 
receive  their  support. 

The  teaching  authority  of  the  bishops  is  referred  to  in 
chapter  15:  ‘^Appoint  for  yourselves  therefore  bishops 
and  deacons  worthy  of  the  Lord,  men  who  are  meek  and 
not  lovers  of  money,  and  true  and  approved ;  for  unto  you 
they  also  perform  the  service  of  the  prophets  and  teach¬ 
ers.  Therefore  despise  them  not;  for  they  are  your 


Cfr.  op.  cit.,  p.  103  ff.:  Harnack  maintains  that  the  travelling  preachers 
were  the  only  officials  in  the  Church  (the  bishops  and  deacons  were  com¬ 
munity-officials),  that  they  held  the  highest  position,  that  they  had  the 
exclusive  right  to  preach  the  Word  of  God,  that  this  prerogative  was  based 
on  a  divine  mandate  or  at  least  on  a  charisma. 


37 


honorable  men  along  with  the  prophets  and  teachers. 
Like  the  prophets  and  teachers  the  bishops  and  deacons 
are  ministers  of  the  Word,  and  they  are  to  be  honored  as 
such. 

Protestant  critics  make  much  of  this  passage.  They 
see  in  it  evidence  against  the  divine  authority  of  the  bish¬ 
ops  and  an  argument  for  the  democratic  form  of  govern¬ 
ment.  Harnack,  for  instance,  says  that  in  all  the  early 
Christian  literature  there  is  not  another  passage  so  im¬ 
portant  for  the  historical  origin  of  the  Catholic  episco¬ 
pate.^®  Here  is  furnished  the  brightest  light  for  an  un¬ 
derstanding  of  the  oldest  history  of  the  constitution  of  the 
Church,  and  in  this  light  all  the  factors  of  early  Church 
history  receive  a  new  signification.^'^ 

The  conclusions,  he  draws  from  it,  may  be  summed  up 
in  the  following  sentence:  In  as  much  as  the  Didache 
directs  the  community:  %6i/3OT0z^?5a-aTe  iavroU  e'maK6'Trov<; 
Kal  htafc6vov<;,  it  shows  that  these  magistrates  are  com¬ 
munity-officials,  men  chosen  by  the  community;  in  as 
far  as  it  demands  such  qualities  as  meekness  and  dis¬ 
interestedness,  it  characterizes  them  as  administrative 
officials ;  and  in  as  far  as  it  derives  their  special  claim  to 
honor  from  a  new  function  which  it  confers  upon  them, 
it  shows  that  these,  in  their  capacity  of  administrative 
officials  of  the  community,  were  not  over  the  community, 
but  on  an  equal  footing  with  it.^®  Harnack  thus  destroys 


XeipoTOV'^O’are  odv  eavrois  iviaKinrovs  Kal  5iaK6vovs  d^lovs  tov  Ku/j/ou,  &v8pas 
Trpaels  Kal  dcpiXapydpovs  Kal  dXrjdeis  Kal  SedoKipLaapL^vovs  *  vp,lv  ydp  XeLTovpyovai  Kal 
avTol,  TTjv  XtLTOvpylav  tQp  Trpo(priT{av  Kal  didaaKdXcjp,  Mr]  o8p  virepldrjTe  avrods  • 
avTol  ydp  elaip  ol  TeTip.rjp.ipoi  vpQp  peTd  tQp  Trpo(prjT(ap  Kal  didacKaXup. 

Lehre  der  Zwolf  Apostel,  p.  141 :  “  Ja  man  darf  geradezu  behaupten, 
dass  es  in  der  gesammten  urchristlichen  Liiteratur  keine  zweite  Stelle  giebt, 
die  fiir  die  Entstehungsgeschichte  des  katholisclien  Episkopats  so  wichtig 
ist  wie  die  unsrige.” 

'Lehre  der  Zwolf  Apostel,  p.  145:  “Damit  ist  der  Punkt  gegeben,  an 
welcbem  aus  der  Aidaxv  das  hellste  Licht  zur  Erkenntniss  der  altesten 
Gescbichte  der  Verfassung  der  Kirche  einstrbmt.  In  diesem  Lichte  ge- 
winnen  alle  Faotoren  dieser  Gescbichte  eine  neue  Bedeutung.” 

Ibid. :  “  Indem  sie  sich  an  die  ganze  Gemeinde  mit  der  Anweisung 


38 


the  divine  authority  of  the  bishops,  robs  them  of  their 
teaching  authority,  makes  them  primarily  administrative 
officials,  cuts  off  the  apostolic  succession,  that  great  guar¬ 
antee  of  authority,  and  thereby  undermines  the  Catholic 
rule  of  faith. 

a)  The  Bishops  and  Deacons  not  Community-Officials. 

The  words  ‘‘Appoint  for  yourselves  therefore  bishops 
and  deacons  ’  ’  seem,  it  is  true,  to  bestow  a  certain  preroga¬ 
tive  upon  the  community.  But,  as  Borkowski  remarks : 
‘  ‘  Since  the  electoral  proceedings  are  not  given  in  detail, 
we  cannot  make  a  definite  statement  about  the  authority 
vested  in  the  community.  ’ Probably  there  is  here  a 
reference  to  that  privilege  of  which  we  spoke  in  the  chap¬ 
ter  on  St.  Clement.  The  people,  perhaps,  had  the  right 
to  select  the  candidates  for  office.  These,  then,  were  pre¬ 
sented  to  the  ecclesiastical  authority  for  approval  and 
ordination.  “The  writer,’^  as  Moran  points  out,  “here 
omits  mention  of  this  ceremony,  not  because  it  was  un¬ 
known  to  him,  but  because  the  Didache  is  a  manual  for  the 
faithful.  Now  the  faithful  did  not  impose  hands;  they 
merely  elected  and  presented  the  candidates  as  in  the  case 
of  the  seven  at  Jerusalem.  Hence  the  author  contents 
himself  with  exhorting  them  to  select  suitable  candi¬ 
dates.”^^  When  one  remembers  that  the  Didache  repre¬ 
sents  a  very  primitive  state  of  affairs  and  deals  with  very 
unsettled  conditions,  and  that  the  Church  was  still  in  its 
infancy  and  was  rapidly  expanding  and  developing,  one 


wendet :  xeiporovi^crare  iavrols  cTricr/coTrous  /cat  diaKovovs,  zeigt  sie,  dass  diese 
Beamten  Gemeindeamite  sind,  die  von  der  Gemeinde  bestellt  werden;  indem 
sie  als  Qualitaten  fiir  dieselben  iSanftmuth  iind  Freiheit  von  Geldgier  ver- 
langt,  characterisirt  sie  als  Verwaltungsbeamte,  und  indem  sie  den  besond- 
eren  Anspruch  auf  Ehre  fiir  dieselben  aiis  einer  neuen  function,  die  sie 
ihnen  beilegt,  ableitet,  zeigt  sie,  dass  jene  Beamten  in  ihrer  Eigenschaft 
als  Verwaltungsbeamte  der  Gemeinde  nicht  tiber-,  sondern  gleichgeordnet 
vvaren.” 

Catholic  Encyclopedia,  Vol.  VII,  p.  336. 

Op.  cit.,  p.  154,  note.  Ofr.  also  Funk,  op.  cit. 


39 


naturally  expects  that  the  communities  would  enjoy 
special  privileges.  But  no  fair-minded  critic  would 
deduce  from  this  fact  a  universally  adopted  form  of  demo¬ 
cratic  Church  government. 

If,  as  Harnack  maintains,  the  communities  did  really 
constitute  their  own  bishops  and  deacons,  then  assuredly 
they  were  only  community-officials,  they  were  only  admin¬ 
istrative  officials,  for  no  community  can  constitute  any 
member  an  official  of  the  Church.  A  higher  ecclesiastical 
power  is  required  for  that.  Furthermore,  supposing  that 
the  communities  did  empower  their  own  bishops  and 
deacons,  would  it  follow  that  this  practice  was  the  univer¬ 
sal  norm  in  the  Church?  By  no  means.  It  would  simply 
show  that  the  communities,  to  which  the  Didache  is  ad¬ 
dressed,  appointed  their  own  overseers;  it  would  show 
that  a  community,  or  a  few  communities  at  the  most,  in  a 
very  primitive  state  in  the  backwoods  of  Christianity 
selected  their  own  officials.  Evidence  of  a  dubious  writ¬ 
ing,  such  'as  the  Didache,  would  never  warrant  a  conclu¬ 
sion  that  goes  against  an  old  tradition  of  the  Church  and 
contradicts  the  testimony  of  more  reliable  sources.  With 
Professor  Gore  one  naturally  prefers  ‘Go  look  at  so  ques¬ 
tionable  a  writing  as  the  Didache  in  the  light  of  apostolic 
practice  and  injunction. 

b)  The  Bishops  and  Deacons  not  primarily  Administra¬ 
tive  Officials. 

Nor  is  it  true  that  the  bishops  and  deacons  were  origi¬ 
nally  and  primarily  administrative  officials.  According  to 
Harnack  the  bishops  were  oeconomi.  They  had  charge 
of  the  finances  and  were  dispensers  of  the  Church  goods. 
Harnack  takes  this  idea  from  Hatch,  and  gives  it  a  some¬ 
what  broader  signification.  His  argument  for  this  state¬ 
ment  is  taken  from  the  words;  “Appoint  for  yourselves 
therefore  bishops  and  deacons  worthy  of  the  Lord,  men 


Op.  cit.,  p.  281. 


40 


who  are  meek  and  not  lovers  of  money The  argu¬ 
ment,  however,  has  little  force.  Meekness  is  a  requisite 
for  everyone  in  authority.  It  is  not  an  attribute  peculiar 
to  an  administrative  official.  And  if  disinterestedness  is 
a  qualification  of  an  administrative  officer,  then  Harnack, 
to  be  consistent,  would  have  to  say  that  the  apostles, 
prophets  and  teachers  were  administrative  officials,  be¬ 
cause  the  Didache  demands  the  same  virtue  of  them. 
^‘And  when  he  departeth  let  the  apostle  receive  nothing 
save  bread,  until  he  findeth  shelter ;  hut  if  he  ask  money 
he  is  a  false  prophet  .  .  .  And  no  prophet  when  he  order- 
eth  a  table  in  the  Spirit  shall  eat  of  it ;  otherwise  he  is  a 
false  prophet  .  .  .  And  whosoever  shall  say  in  the  Spirit, 
Give  me  silver  or  anything  else,  ye  shall  not  listen  to  him^  ^ 
(ch.  11).  In  view  of  this  testimony  does  it  not  seem  more 
likely  that  disinterestedness  is  rather  a  precaution 
against  false  doctrine  than  a  qualification  for  an  adminis¬ 
trative  function! 

St.  Paul,  we  know,  looks  upon  covetousness  as  the  sign 
of  a  false  prophet  or  teacher.  Writing  to  Titus  he  enu¬ 
merates  the  qualities  of  a  bishop,  and  then  warns  him 
against  seducers  in  these  words:  ^^Por  there  are  also 
many  disobedient,  vain  talkers,  and  seducers;  especially 
they  who  are  of  the  circumcision.  Who  must  be  reproved, 
who  subvert  whole  houses,  teaching  things  which  they 
ought  not,  for  filthy  lucre^s  sake.’’^^  If  greed  is  the  sign 
of  a  false  teacher,  is  it  not  more  in  keeping  with  the  evi¬ 
dence  to  argue  that  lack  of  greed  is  the  sign  of  a  true 
teacher! 

Even  if  one  admits  that  the  words  ^‘meek’^  and  ‘‘not 
lovers  of  money  do  refer  to  administrative  power,  one  is 
not  warranted  in  concluding  that  the  bishops  and  deacons 
were  originally  and  primarily  financial  administrators 
or  oeconomi.  The  most  one  can  conclude  is,  that  the  bish¬ 
ops  and  deacons  had  administrative  power  along  with 

Op.  cit.,  p.  141. 

""  Tit.  i,  10-11. 


41 


their  other  functions.  Administration  did  not  constitute 
the  principal  part  of  the  bishop  ^s  office.  According  to 
the  testimony  of  Justin  the  offerings  were  deposited  with 
the  bishop  who  distributed  them  to  the  needy.^^  The 
offerings,  however,  did  not  constitute  the  principal  part 
of  the  ecclesiastical  assembly,  hence  neither  did  the  dis¬ 
tribution  of  the  alms  constitute  the  principal  part  of  the 
bishop’s  office.^® 

c)  The  Bishops  and  Deacons  not  Dependent  upon  the 
Apostles,  Prophets  and  Teachers  of  the  Didache 
for  their  Teaching  Authority. 

According  to  Harnack  the  first  mention  of  the  bishops 
and  deacons  as  ministers  of  the  Word  appears  in  the 
Didache.  They  became  substitutes  for  the  apostles, 
prophets  and  teachers,  as  the  latter  grew  more  and  more 
scarce.  When  the  bishops  (and  deacons)  stepped  into 
the  position  of  teachers,  he  says,  they  not  only  acquired 
the  extraordinary  importance  which  the  professional 
preachers  enjoyed,  but  the  character  of  their  office  as  well 
necessarily  appeared  in  a  new  light.  To  be  teachers,  to 
be  by  profession  preachers  and  guardians  of  the  Gospel 
was  no  community- office.  It  was  a  divine  commission, 
in  the  performance  of  which,  one  was  not  a  servant  of  an 
individual  community,  but  a  servant  of  the  Church.  Thus 
the  episcopate  was  put  on  a  line  of  Catholic  development. 
The  bishops  were  recognized  as  those  who  performed  the 
service  of  the  prophets,  teachers  and  apostles. 

Thus  the  administrative  officials,  according  to  Harnack, 
rose  step  by  step  to  the  head  of  the  community,  a  position, 
which  the  professional  teachers  of  Christianity  had  held 
from  the  beginning  by  virtue  of  their  divine  institution. 
It  lay,  he  says,  in  the  very  nature  of  the  administrative 

Apologia,  1,  67 :  “  Qui  abundant  et  volunt,  suo  arbitrio,  quod  quisque 
vult,  largiunt  ut,  et  quod  colligitur  apud  eum,  qui  preest,  deponitur,  ac 
ipse  subvenit  pupillis  et  viduis,”  etc. 

Funk,  Dootrina  12  Apostolorum  (1887),  p.  44. 


42 


and  patriarchal  office,  that  the  same  should  gradually 
absorb  and  acquire  the  office  of  preaching.^® 

There  is  no  foundation  for  these  conclusions  in  the 
Didache.  All  that  one  can  deduce  from  the  words:  ^^for 
they  also  perform  the  service  of  prophets  and  teachers,^’ 
is  that  the  bishops  along  with  the  prophets  and  teachers 
had  the  right  to  preach  the  Grospel.  And  as  ministers  of 
the  Word  they  were  to  be  honored.  Therefore  despise 
them  not ;  for  they  are  your  honorable  men  along  with  the 
prophets  and  teachers.^’ 

The  Pastoral  Letters^^  clearly  indicate,  that  the  teach¬ 
ing  office  belonged  to  the  bishops  from  the  very  beginning. 
To  Timothy  St.  Paul  writes :  ‘‘Take  heed  to  thyself  and  to 
doctrine;  be  earnest  in  them.  For  in  doing  this  thou 
shaft  both  save  thyself  and  them  that  hear  thee.^’^®  Again 
he  says :  ‘  ‘  Till  I  come  attend  unto  reading,  to  exhortation 
and  to  doctrine. After  giving  him  instructions  for 
the  faithful  St.  Paul  tells  him :  ‘  ‘  These  things  teach  and 


Le/ire  der  Zwolf  Apostel,  p.  153  :  Indem  die  Bishofe  (und  Diakonen) 
aber  in  die  Stellung  von  iLelirern  einriickten,  kam  ihnen  nicht  niir  das 
ausserordentliclie  Ansehen  zu  gut,  welches  jene  berufsmassigen  Prediger 
genossen,  sondern  in  dem  Momente  musste  auch  die  Natur  ihres  Amtes  in 
einem  neuen  Lichte  erscheinen.  Lehrer  zu  sein,  das  Evangelium,  resp, 
die  ‘  gesunde  Lehre  ’  von  Berufs  wegen  zu  verkiindigen  und  zu  waliren,  das 
war  ja  kein  Gemeindeamt,  sondern  ein  gottlicher  Auftrag,  in  dessen  Aus- 
fiihrung  man  nicht  Diener  einer  Einzelgemeinde,  sondern  Diener  der  Kirche 
war,  Der  Bpiskopat  wurde  auf  die  Linie  seiner  katholischen  Entwicklung 
gestellt,  indem  die  Inhaber  desselben  als  solche  anerkannt  wurden,  die 
auch  den  Dienst  der  Propheten  und  Lehrer,  letztlich  auch  den  der  Apostel, 
leisten.  Die  Inhaber  des  administrativen  Amtes  stiegen  so  schrittweise 
zu  der  Hohe  viber  der  Gemeinde  hinauf,  welche  die  berufsmassigen  Lehrer 
der  Christenheit  kraft  gottlicher  Einsetzung  von  Anfang  an  behauptet 
hatten.  .  .  .  Erstlich  lag  es  in  der  Natur  des  administrativen  und  patri- 
archalischen  Amtes,  dass  dasselbe  nach  und  nach  auch  den  Dienst  am 
Wort  Anderen  entzog  und  in  sich  hineinzog.  .  . 

These  Letters,  according  to  Catholic  and  conservative  Protestant 
scholars,  were  written  by  St.  Paul  between  the  years  64-66.  Cfr.  Schu¬ 
macher,  Handbook  of  Scripture  Study,  Vol.  Ill,  217  ff. 

I  Tim.  iv,  16. 

I  Tim.  iv,  13. 


43 


exhort/ And  he  concludes  his  first  epistle  to  Timothy 
with  the  words :  ‘  ‘  0  Timothy,  keep  that  which  is  com¬ 
mitted  to  thy  trust,  avoiding  the  profane  novelties  of 
words  and  oppositions  of  knowledge  falsely  so-called/ 

In  his  second  Epistle  to  Timothy  St.  Paul  is  still  more  ex¬ 
plicit  on  this  point.  He  says:  ^^Be  not  thou  therefore 
ashamed  of  the  testimony  of  our  Lord,  nor  of  me  his 
prisoner;  hut  labor  with  the  gospel  according  to  the 
power  of  Ood.^’^^  Again  he  writes:  ^‘Hold  the  form  of 
sound  words  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  in  faith,  and  in 
the  love  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus. And  again:  ‘‘The 
things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  by  many  witnesses, 
the  same  commend  to  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  fit  to 
teach  others  also.  ’  In  chapter  iv,  1-3,  he  says :  “  I  charge 
thee,  before  God  and  Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  judge  the 
living  and  the  dead,  by  his  coming  and  his  kingdom; 
preach  the  word,  be  instant  in  season,  out  of  season ;  re¬ 
prove,  entreat,  rebuke  in  all  patience  and  doctrine.  For 
there  shall  be  a  time  when  they  will  not  endure  sound 
doctrine;  but,  according  to  their  own  desires,  they  will 
heap  to  themselves  teachers,  having  itching  ears,^^  etc. 

In  the  Epistle  to  Titus  the  teaching  authority  of  the 
bishop  is  equally  clear.  When  St.  Paul  is  enumerating 
the  requisites  of  a  bishop  he  stresses  this  particular 
point.  “For  a  bishop,’’  he  writes,  “must  be  without 
crime,  as  the  steward  of  God:  not  proud,  not  subject  to 
anger,^  not  given  to  wine,  no  striker,  not  greedy  of  filthy 
lucre:  but  given  to  hospitality,  gentle,  sober,  just,  holy, 
continent ;  embracing  that  faithful  word  which  is  accord' 
ing  to  doctrine,  that  he  may  be  able  to  exhort  in  sound 
doctrine,  and  to  convince  the  gainsayers.”^^  Again  he 
says:  “Speak  thou  the  things  that  become  sound  doc¬ 
trine.”^®  And  he  adds:  “In  all  things  show  thyself  an 

I  Tim.  vi,  2.  II  Tim.  ii,  2. 

1  Tim.  vi,  20'21.  35  ^it.  i,  7-9. 

32  II  Tim.  i,  8.  36  p 

33  II  Tim.  i,  13. 

4 


44 


example  of  good  works,  in  doctrine,  in  integrity,  in  grav¬ 
ity.  The  sound  word  that  cannot  he  blamed. These 
things  speak,  and  exhort  and  rebuke  with  all  authority. 
Furthermore,  he  bids  Titus  in  teaching  to  avoid  foolish 
questions,  and  genealogies,  and  contentions,  and  strivings 
about  the  law.  For  they  are  unprofitable  and  vain.^’^^ 
There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  bishops  have 
lately  acquired  their  teaching  authority.  The  author  of 
the  Didache  does  not  give  the  slightest  hint  that  the  over¬ 
seers  are  encroaching  on  the  domain  of  the  prophets,  or 
that  he  is  conscious  of  passing  through  a  transition 
period.  A  writer,  who  esteemed  so  highly  the  prophetic 
ministry,  would  be  the  first  to  notice  the  encroachment 
of  the  overseers,  and  instead  of  praising  would  censure 
them.  ‘^If  on  the  other  hand,’’  as  Moran  remarks,  ‘‘the 
writer  of  the  Didache  was  himself  under  the  influence  of 
the  supposed  pro-hierarchical  tendency,  he  would  have 
betrayed  himself  by  keeping  the  prophets  in  the  back¬ 
ground,  and  pushing  forward  the  overseers;  yet  this  is 
precisely  what  he  has  not  done.”  Besides  such  a  radi¬ 
cal  change  in  the  constitution  of  the  Church  could  not 
have  taken  place  without  arousing  comment  and  contro¬ 
versy.  Yet  there  is  no  trace  of  controversy  on  this  point. 
Church  history  mentions  no  violent  or  abrupt  change  or 
usurpation  in  the  form  of  Church  government.  Hence  it 
is  entirely  wrong  to  adduce  the  testimony  of  the  Didache 
as  an  argument  against  the  teaching  authority  of  the 
bishops. 


=®Tit.  iii,  9. 

Op.  cit.,  p,  109. 


Tit.  ii,  6-8. 
3»Tit.  ii,  15. 


CHAPTER  III. 


St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch. 

1.  As  a  Witness  to  the  Rule  of  Faith, 

Ignatius  of  Antioch  is  even  a  more  valuable  witness 
for  the  rule  of  faith  than  Clement  of  Rome.  St.  Ignatius 
was  one  of  the  early  bishops  of  Antioch.  According  to 
Origen^  and  Eusebius^  he  was  the  second,  or  if  we  include 
St.  Peter,  the  third  of  the  Antiochene  bishops,  the  succes¬ 
sor  of  Evodius,  St.  John  Chrysostom  in  his  panegyric 
on  the  Saint  supposes  that  Ignatius  knew  the  Apostles 
and  received  ordination  from  them,^  and  Theodoret  de¬ 
scribes  him  as  ‘Having  received  the  grace  of  the  high- 
priesthood  at  the  hand  of  the  great  Peter. The  Apos¬ 
tolic  Constitution  states  that  he  was  ordained  by  St. 
Paul.^  A  later  tradition  regards  him  as  a  disciple  of  St. 
John.  The  Martyrium  Colbertinum  calls  him  the  dis¬ 
ciple  of  the  Apostle  John,  and  St.  Jerome  in  his  revised 
version  of  the  Chronicon  of  Eusebius  names  Ignatius  as 
the  disciple  of  the  beloved  Apostle  along  with  Papias  and 
Polycarp.  Eusebius,  however,  does  not  mention  the  fact 
in  the  original  work,  so  not  much  weight  can  be  attached 
to  the  testimony.  Nevertheless  it  seems  almost  certain  that 
Ignatius  was  an  apostolic  man  in  the  real  sense  of  the 
word.  Most  probably  he  received  ordination  from  one  of 
the  Apostles.  Punk  thinks  it  probable  that  he  had  seen 
Peter  or  Paul  in  his  youth.^ 

It  was  while  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties  as  bishop  of 
Antioch  that  Ignatius  was  taken  prisoner  and  sent  to 

^  In  Luc.  horn.,  VI.  ^  L]p.,  151. 

2  Hist.  Eccles.,  Ill,  22.  ®  VII,  46. 

®  In  8.  Mo/rtyrem  Ignatium,  1  and  >2. 

^  Opera  Patrum  Apostolicorum,  (1887),  Vol.  I,  p.  xlv. 


45 


46 


Eome  under  a  guard  of  soldiers  to  be  martyred  in  the 
amphitheatre.  On  the  way  they  took  him  to  Smyrna, 
where  he  was  hospitably  treated  by  Poly  carp  and  the 
Christians  of  that  community.  During  his  sojourn  there 
he  was  visited  by  delegates  from  the  Christian  Churches 
in  the  neighboring  cities  of  Ephesus-,  Magnesia  and 
Tralles.  In  return  for  their  kindness  the  holy  bishop  ad¬ 
dressed  a  letter  to  each  of  these  Churches.  At  the  same 
time  he  sent  a  letter  to  the  Romans  asking  them,  not  to 
hinder  him  ‘‘from  attaining  unto  Grod.’^  His  next  stop¬ 
ping  place  was  Troas.  Here  Ignatius  wrote  three  more 
letters, — to  the  Philadelphians,  to  the  Smyrnians  and  to 
Polycarp. 

The  holy  Bishop’s  one  desire  was  to  be  “ground  fine  as 
wheat-flour  for  the  sacrificial  offering.”^  His  wish  was 
gratified  on  his  arrival  at  Rome.  He  was  torn  to  pieces 
by  the  wild  beasts  of  the  amphitheatre.  His  martyrdom, 
according  to  Eusebius,  occurred  sometime  in  the  reign  of 
Trajan  (98-117).®  The  exact  date  cannot  be  given,  but 
critics  place  it  between  the  years  107  or  110  and  117. 
Harnack  puts  it  later, — about  the  year  130  A.  D.  There 
is  no  evidence,  however,  for  so  late  a  date. 

Ignatius  is  a  noteworthy  witness  for  the  discipline  and 
doctrine  of  the  early  Church.  From  contact  with  some 
of  the  Apostles  he  had  learned  the  apostolic  doctrine  at 
its  very  source,  and  thus  was  competent  to  bear  witness 
to  it.  Moreover,  he  was  one  of  the  early  bishops  of  the 
great  Church  of  Antioch.  Were  he  not  an  apostolic  man, 
and  a  true  exponent  of  the  apostolic  teaching,  he  could 
never  have  held  so  prominent  a  place  and  have  been  so 
revered  and  loved  by  the  early  Christians.  He  was  like- 
Avise  the  friend  of  the  faithful  Polycarp.  This  fact  alone 
speaks  for  him.  Polycarp,  the  firm  adherent  of  everything 
apostolic,  who  abhorred  every  contrary  doctrine,  would 


Ep.  to  the  Rom.,  ch.  4. 

®  Chron.  post.  an.  Ahr.,  2123. 


47 


never  have  entered  on  such  friendly  relations  with  Ig¬ 
natius,  were  he  not  a  teacher  after  his  own  heart  and 
mind. 

The  delegates  from  the  neighboring  Churches  likewise 
testify  to  the  apostolic  spirit  of  Ignatius.  They  come  to 
visit  the  Saint  on  his  way  to  martyrdom,  in  order  to  re¬ 
ceive  counsel  and  edification.  They  see  in  him  the  very 
embodiment  of  apostolic  truth  and  courage.  Finally  his 
martyrdom  itself  is  a  beautiful  tribute  to  his  apostolic 
spirit.  Ignatius  will  die  rather  than  swerve  in  the  least 
from  the  teaching  he  has  learned  from  the  Apostles.  So 
convinced  is  he  of  its  truth,  so  full  of  zeal  for  the  glory 
of  God,  so  eager  to  imitate  the  Apostles  before  him,  that 
he  accounts  it  an  honor  to  die  for  the  love  of  God  and  in 
defence  of  the  truth.  The  glory  of  the  martyr  thus  en¬ 
hances  the  more  the  teaching  of  the  doctor.  As  Light- 
foot  remarks:  ^‘His  teaching  on  matters  of  theological 
truth  and  ecclesiastical  order  was  barbed  and  fledged  by 
the  fame  of  his  constancy  in  that  supreme  trial  of  faith. 

2.  The  Ignatian  Question. 

The  Ignatian  Letters  have  come  down  to  us  in  three 
groups,  the  Long,  the  Middle  and  the  Short  Group.  The 
Long  Group  contains  thirteen  letters,  namely:  1)  Maria 
of  Cassabola  to  Ignatius,  2)  Ignatius  to  Maria,  3)  to  the 
Trallians,  4)  to  the  Magnesians,  5)  to  the  Tarsenians,  6) 
to  the  Philippians,  7)  to  the  Philadelphians,  8)  to  the 
Smyrnians,  9)  to  Poly  carp,  10)  to  the  Antiochians,  11)  to 
Hero,  12)  to  the  Ephesians,  13)  to  the  Eomans.  Of  these 
letters  Eusebius  ascribes  only  seven  to  Ignatius ;  namely, 
the  letter  to  the  Ephesians,  to  the  Magnesians,  to  the 
Trallians,  to  the  Eomans,  to  the  Philadelphians,  to  the 
Smyrnians  and  to  Polycarp.^^  This  Long  Group  of  let¬ 
ters  was  the  first  to  be  published.  They  appeared  in 


®  Apostolic  Fathers,  Part  II,  Vol.  I,  p.  39. 
Hist.  Eccles.,  Ill,  36,  4. 


48 


Latin  in  1498  A.  D.,  and  shortly  afterwards  in  Greek. 
Being  a  strong  defence  of  the  episcopacy,  they  were  re¬ 
jected  by  Calvinistic  Protestants,  who  saw  in  them  a 
repudiation  of  their  own  congregational  system.  Scholars, 
too,  soon  noticed  that  they  differed  from  the  quotations 
cited  by  the  Fathers.  This  gave  rise  to  the  opinion  that 
the  epistles  were  interpolated  by  a  later  hand.  Scultetus, 
one  of  the  Reformed  theologians,  maintained  this  view¬ 
point  in  his  work  Medulla  theologiae  Patrum,  Am- 
berg£e  (1598  A.  D.).  His  claims  were  verified  shortly 
after  by  the  discovery  of  another  group  of  Ignatian  Let¬ 
ters  in  a  shorter  form,  corresponding  to  the  seven  letters 
mentioned  by  Eusebius.  These  were  recognized  by  the 
majority  of  scholars  as  the  genuine  Ignatian  Epistles. 
The  controversy,  however,  was  not  ended. 

In  1666  A.  D.  the  Calvinist  scholar,  Daille,  came  out 
with  a  work  in  which  he  denied  the  Ignatian  authorship, 
and  branded  the  letters  as  an  interpolation  of  a  later 
period.^^  He  was  ably  refuted  by  the  Anglican  Pearson 
in  his  Vindicice  Ignatianoe}^  Pearson  proved  that  the 
letters  in  the  shorter  form  were  the  real,  genuine  works 
of  Ignatius. 

In  the  nineteenth  century  the  epistles  were  again  called 
in  question  by  Hr.  Cureton,  and  the  controversy  was 
renewed.  Cureton  discovered  another  group  of  letters  in 
the  Syriac.  This  group  contained  three  of  the  Ignatian 
Letters  in  a  still  shorter  form, — the  epistle  to  the  Ephe¬ 
sians,  to  the  Romans  and  to  Polycarp.  These  were  pub¬ 
lished  by  Cureton  in  1845  A.  D.  He  attempted  to  prove 
that  these  letters  were  the  only  genuine  ones,  but  Zahn,^^ 
Funk,^^  and  Lightfoot^^  have  shown  that  his  thesis  is 


soriptis  quae  suh  Dionysii  Areop.  et  Ignatii  Antioch,  nommihus 
circumferimtur,  1666. 

167i2  A.  D. 

Ignatius  von  Antiochien,  1873. 

Die  Echtheit  der  ignatianischen  Brief e,  1883. 

Apostolic  Fathers,  Part  II. 


untenable.  They  found  the  three  Syriac  Letters  to  be 
only  an  abridgment  of  the  longer  form.  At  the  same  time 
they  have  proven  beyond  doubt  that  the  seven  epistles 
of  the  Middle  ^Recension  are  the  real,  genuine  works  of 
Ignatius.^®  Now  practically  all  critics,  Harnack  included, 
admit  that  these  seven  epistles  are  the  authentic  works 
of  the  Saint.  Difficulties  naturally  exist,  remarks  Knopf, 
but  they  are  not  to  be  weighed  against  the  uninventable 
form  of  these  writings,  the  originality  of  the  man  which 
seems  to  speak  forth  from  the  pulsing  lines,  and  the 
wealth  of  personal  references  which  intersperse  the  let¬ 
ters. 

3.  Authenticity. 


That  St.  Ignatius  was  the  author  of  the  letters  is 
established  by  the  strongest  testimony.  Polycarp,  the 
friend  of  Ignatius,  expressly  refers  to  them  in  his  epistle 
to  the  Philippians.  He  informs  the  Philippians  that  in 
compliance  with  their  request  he  forwards  to  them  ‘Hhe 
letters  of  Ignatius,  which  were  sent  by  him  to  us,  to¬ 
gether  with  others,  which  we  had  in  our  possession 
(ra?  eTTtcTToXa?  l^yvaTiov  ra?  iTefx<^6eLcra^  rjixlv  vtt’  avrov  /cal  aXXa? 

oo-a?  eix^iiev  Trap*  97/xfcz^)  These,  Polycarp  says,  are  sub¬ 
joined  to  his  own  letter ;  and  he  recommends  them  to  the 
Philippians  as  a  means  of  edification,  ^Hor  they  comprise 
faith  and  endurance  and  every  kind  of  edification  which 
pertaineth  unto  our  Lord^^  (ch.  13)  These  words  are 
quite  decisive ;  in  fact  so  much  so  that  the  opponents  of 
the  Ignatian  Epistles  feel  compelled  to  reject  Polycarp’s 
Epistle  as  a  forgery,  or  to  reject  this  passage  as  an  inter¬ 
polation. 


Cfr.  also  Kackl,  Die  Christologie  des  heiligen  Ignatius  von  Antioohien, 
(1914). 

Das  nachapostolische  Zeitalter,  (li9{)5),  p.  37. 

Ch.  13:  “The  letters  of  Ignatius  which  were  sent  to  us  by  him,  and 
others  as  many  as  we  had  by  us  we  send  unto  you,  according  as  ye  gave 
charge;  the  which  are  subjoined  to  this  letter;  from  which  ye  will  be  able 
to  gain  great  advantage.” 


Another  direct  witness  to  the  letters  is  Irenaens.  Writ¬ 
ing  fifty  to  eighty  years  afterwards  (ca.  175-190  A.  D.) 
he  cites  the  epistle  to  the  Romans  4,  Id^  ‘‘As  one  of  our 
people  said  when  condemned  to  wild  beasts,  I  am  the 
wheat  of  God,  and  am  ground  by  the  teeth  of  wild  beasts, 
that  I  may  be  found  pure  breadd’  That  this  reference  is 
taken  from  Ignatius  no  one  can  deny. 

Eusebius,  as  we  have  already  seen,  enumerates  the 
seven  epistles  in  order  and  expressly  says,  they  were 
written  by  Ignatius  on  his  way  to  martyrdom.^^ 

4.  The  Rule  of  Faith  in  the  Ignatian  Letters. 

The  valiant  Bishop  of  Antioch  is  on  his  way  to  death. 
He  has  but  a  short  time  in  which  to  give  his  last  message 
to  his  fellow-Christians  and  to  tell  them  what  he  deems 
of  the  utmost  importance  for  them.  His  message  centers 
around  two  points,  the  contagion  of  heresy  and  the  proper 
safeguard  against  it.  It  is  a  scathing  repudiation  of 
heresy  and  a  vehement  appeal  for  union  with  and  sub¬ 
mission  to  the  bishops.  Thus  Ignatius  bears  witness  to 
the  teaching  authority  of  the  Church  in  a  twofold  way. 
He  brands  all  doctrines  outside  of  the  apostolic  doctrine 
as  false  and  insists  on  obedience  to  the  bishops  as  the 
means  of  preserving  this  doctrine. 

a)  Heresy  Denounced. 

Ignatius  denounces  heresy  in  the  strongest  terms.  Any 
departure  from  the  apostolic  doctrine  is  hateful  to  him. 
In  his  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  he  writes:  “Now  Onesi- 
mus  of  his  own  accord  highly  praiseth  your  orderly  con¬ 
duct  in  God,  for  that  ye  all  live  according  to  truth,  and 
that  no  heresy  hath  a  home  among  you:  nay  ye  do  not 
so  much  as  listen  to  any  one  if  he  speak  of  aught  else 
save  concerning  Jesus  Christ  in  truth. “For  some  are 

Adv.  Eaer.,  V,  28,  4. 

Hist,  eccles.,  Ill,  36. 


51 


wont  of  malicious  guile  to  hawk  about  the  Name,  while 
they  do  certain  other  things  unworthy  of  God.  These  men 
ye  ought  to  shun,  as  wild  beasts ;  for  they  are  mad  dogs, 
biting  by  stealth;  against  whom  ye  ought  to  be  on  your 
guard,  for  they  are  hard  to  heal.  There  is  one  only  physi¬ 
cian  of  flesh  and  of  spirit,  generate  and  ingenerate,  God 
in  man,  true  Life  in  death.  Son  of  Mary  and  Son  of  God, 
first  passible  and  then  impassible,  Jesus  Christ  our 
Lord’^  (ch.  6-7).  Ignatius  praises  the  Ephesians  because 
they  live  according  to  truth.  Truth  in  the  eyes  of  the 
holy  Bishop  is  the  apostolic  doctrine.  He  rejoices  that  no 
heresy  has  a  home  among  them.  Yet  he  scents  danger.  He 
knoAvs  that  false  teachers  are  going  about  teaching  a 
doctrine  different  from  the  apostolic  doctrine,  a  doctrine 
that  is  not  true.  Hence  the  warning:  These  men  ye 
ought  to  shun  as  wild  beasts  for  they  are  mad  dogs.^’ 
Those,  therefore,  teaching  a  doctrine  different  from  that 
of  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  in  other  words,  heretics,  are 
in  the  eyes  of  Ignatius  like  mad  dogs.  They  bite  by 
stealth  and  their  bite  is  poisonous.  They  sow  their  in¬ 
sidious  doctrine  by  deceitful  means. 

Ignatius  addresses  the  Trallians  in  similar  terms.  Here 
heresy  is  a  poisonous  herbage.  ‘H  exhort  you,  therefore — 
yet  not  I,  but  the  love  of  Jesus  Christ  —  take  ye  only 
Christian  food,  and  abstain  from  strange  herbage,  which 
is  heresy:  for  these  men  do  even  mingle  poison  with 
Jesus  Christ,  imposing  upon  others  by  a  show  of  honesty, 
like  persons  administering  a  deadly  drug  with  honied 
wine,  so  that  one  who  knoweth  it  not,  fearing  nothing, 
drinketh  in  death  with  a  baneful  delight^’  (ch.  6).  We 
all  know  how  carefully  one  avoids  poisonous  food  of  what¬ 
soever  kind.  With  the  same  zeal,  Ignatius  tells  the  Tral¬ 
lians,  they  should  avoid  heretics,  namely,  those  who 
mingle  poison  with  Jesus  Christ’’  and  ^‘persons  admin¬ 
istering  a  deadly  drug  with  honied  wine.”  The  true 
apostolic  doctrine  is  good,  wholesome  Christian  food; 
heresy,  the  private  interpretations  of  false  teachers,  is 


52 


poisonous  herbage.  The  conclusion  is  clear.  The  faithful 
should  eat  the  one  and  beware  of  the  other.  In  his  epistle 
to  the  Philadelphians  he  uses  the  same  figure  of  speech. 
^‘Abstain  from  noxious  herbs,  which  are  not  the  hus¬ 
bandry  of  Jesus  Christ,  because  they  are  not  the  planting 
of  the  Father’’  (ch.  3).  Therefore,  he  exhorts  the  faith¬ 
ful  to  ^‘shun  those  vile  offshoots  that  gender  a  deadly 
fruit,  whereof  if  a  man  taste,  forthwith  he  dieth.”  ‘‘For 
these  men,”  he  says,  “are  not  of  the  Father’s  planting: 
for  if  they  had  been,  they  would  have  been  seen  to  be 
branches  of  the  Cross,  and  their  fruit  imperishable — the 
Cross  whereby  He,  through  His  passion,  inviteth  us,  be¬ 
ing  His  members.  Now  it  cannot  be  that  a  head  should 
be  found  without  members,  seeing  that  God  promiseth 
union,  and  this  union  is  Himself”  (Tral.,  ch.  11). 

Moreover,  he  tells  the  Philadelphians  that  he  con¬ 
siders  anyone  who  speaks  not  of  Jesus  Christ  as  little 
better  than  an  empty  sepulchre.  “But  if  anyone  pro¬ 
pound  Judaism  unto  you,  hear  him  not:  for  it  is  better 
to  hear  Christianity  from  a  man  who  is  circumcised  than 
Judaism  from  one  uncircumcised.  But  if  either  the  one 
or  the  other  speak  not  concerning  Jesus  Christ,  I  look 
on  them  as  tombstones  and  graves  of  the  dead,  whereon 
are  inscribed  only  the  names  of  men.  Shun  ye,  therefore, 
the  wicked  arts  and  plottings  of  the  prince  of  this  world, 
lest  haply  ye  be  crushed  by  his  devices,  and  wax  weak  in 
your  love.  But  assemble  yourselves  all  together  with  un¬ 
divided  heart”  (ch.  6).  Those,  therefore,  who  do  not 
preach  Jesus  Christ  and  His  doctrine,  but  a  contrary 
doctrine,  are  absolutely  condemned.  They  are  full  of 
corruption.  These  the  faithful  must  shun  as  minions  of 
the  Evil  One.  Against  such  men  they  must  be  constantly 
on  their  guard,  lest  they  be  deceived  by  the  “wicked  arts 
and  plottings  of  the  Prince  of  this  world,”  and  thus  be 
crushed  by  his  devices  and  consequently  robbed  of  their 
Christian  heritage. 

In  his  letter  to  the  Magnesians,  Ignatius  speaks  of  two 


53 


coinages,  one  of  God,  the  other  of  the  world.  ^‘Each 
of  them  hath  its  proper  stamp  impressed  upon  it,  the 
unbelievers  the  stamp  of  this  world,  but  the  faithful  in 
love  the  stamp  of  God  the  Father  through  Jesus  Christ, 
through  whom  unless  of  our  own  free  choice  we  accept 
to  die  unto  His  passion,  His  life  is  not  in  us”  (ch.  5). 
Hence  according  to  Ignatius  only  those  that  believe  in 
Jesus  Christ  and  His  doctrine  have  the  stamp  of  God. 
^‘Be  not  seduced  by -strange  doctrines,”  he  admonishes 
them,  therefore,  ^^nor  by  antiquated  fables  which  are 
profitless”  (ch.  8).  The  latter  is  the  coinage  of  the 
world,  the  vain  interpretations  and  speculations  of  indi¬ 
viduals. 

Writing  to  the  Smyrnians,  he  calls  the  teachers  of  false 
doctrine  the  advocates  of  death.  ‘‘But  certain  persons 
ignorantly  deny  Him,  or  rather  have  been  denied  by  Him, 
being  advocates  of  death  rather  than  of  truth”  (ch.  5). 
The  holy  Bishop  wishes  to  say  that  heretics  by  teaching 
their  false  doctrines  are  sowing  the  seeds  of  spiritual 
death,  for  heresy  leads  to  everlasting  death.  So  odious, 
in  fact,  are  heretics  in  his  eyes  that  he  does  not  deem  it 
fit  even  to  mention  their  names.  “But  their  names,  being 
unbelievers,  I  have  not  thought  fit  to  record  in  writing.” 
Nay,  he  even  wishes  he  could  forget  them.  “Far  be  it 
from  me  even  to  remember  them,  until  they  repent  and 
return  to  the  passion  which  is  our  resurrection”  (ch.  5). 

How  beautifully,  too,  he  encourages  Polycarp,  “the 
immovable  rock.”  “Let  not  those  that  seem  to  be  plaus¬ 
ible  and  yet  teach  strange  doctrine  dismay  thee.  Stand 
thou  firm,  as  an  anvil  when  it  is  smitten.  It  is  the  part  of 
a  great  athlete  to  receive  blows  and  be  victorious.  But 
especially  must  we  for  God^s  sake  endure  all  things,  that 
He  also  may  endure  us”  (ch.  3).  Poly  carp  must  not  only 
be  able  to  teach  others  the  true  doctrine  and  exhort  them 
to  salvation,  but  he  must  be  willing  to  suffer  for  it.  He 
must  be  an  anvil  that  is  smitten,  a  victorious  athlete  that 
can  receive  blows  and  still  conquer. 


54 


In  these  and  similar  terms  the  Bishop  of  Antioch  re¬ 
veals  his  abhorrence  of  heresy.  In  his  mind  the  doctrine 
handed  down  by  the  Apostles  is  so  sacred,  so  true  and  so 
necessary,  that  he  can  not  brook  the  slightest  deviation 
from  it.  To  him  advocates  of  other  doctrines  are  wild 
beasts  bent  upon  destruction,  mad  dogs  whose  bite  is 
poisonous,  noxious  herbs  whose  drink  is  death,  tomb¬ 
stones  and  graves  of  the  dead  whose  breath  is  corruption. 
This  hatred  of  heretics  and  this  abhorrence  of  heresy 
brings  out  in  bold  relief  the  saintly  martyr  ^s  love  and 
zeal  for  the  one  true  apostolic  doctrine.  It  is,  indeed,  a 
repudiation  and  a  refutation  of  the  theory  of  private  in¬ 
terpretation.  Nothing  is  further  from  the  mind  of  Igna¬ 
tius  than  private  judgment  in  religious  matters.  It  is 
this  very  private  judgment  which  he  abhors  and  de¬ 
nounces  so  vehemently.  The  heretics  were  interpreting 
the  apostolic  teaching  according  to  their  own  whims  and 
fancies.  They  were  intermingling  with  it  Judaistic  er¬ 
rors.  It  was  just  this  false  teaching,  the  outcome  of  pri¬ 
vate  interpretation,  that  elicited  the  trumpet  note  of 
warning  from  the  pen  of  the  holy  Martyr. 

b)  Submission  to  the  Bishops. 

Ignatius  is  vehement  in  his  denunciation  of  heresy,  but 
he  is  equally  insistent  on  the  authority  of  the  bishops. 
Submission  to  the  bishops  and  clergy  is  the  condition, 
without  which  they  can  not  know  the  truth  and  persevere 
in  the  true  doctrine. 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians  he  writes:  ‘Mt  is, 
therefore,  meet  for  you  in  every  way  to  glorify  Jesus 
Christ  who  glorified  you ;  that  being  perfectly  joined  to¬ 
gether  in  one  submission,  submitting  yourselves  to  your 
bishop  and  presbytery,  ye  may  be  sanctified  in  all  things^’ 
(ch.  2).  By  submission  to  the  bishop  and  presbytery, 
Ignatius  says,  they  will  be  sanctified  in  all  things.  Note 
that  he  requires  nothing  else  but  obedience  to  the  bishop 
and  clergy,  knowing  that  thereby  the  means  of  their 


55 


sanctification  will  be  secured.  In  chapter  3  he  says :  ‘‘But, 
since  love  doth  not  suffer  me  to  be  silent  concerning  you, 
therefore,  was  I  forward  to  exhort  you,  that  ye  run  in 
harmony  with  the  mind  of  God:  for  Jesus  Christ  also, 
our  inseparable  life,  is  the  mind  of  the  Father,  even  as 
the  bishops  that  are  settled  in  the  farthest  parts  of  the 
earth  are  in  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ.’’  Ignatius  exhorts 
them  to  run  in  harmony  with  the  mind  of  God.  They  will 
do  this  if  they  run  in  harmony  with  the  mind  of  the 
bishops,  that  is,  if  they  obey  them,  for  the  bishops  are 
“in  the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ.” 

In  chapter  4  he  continues:  “So  then  it  becometh  you 
to  run  in  harmony  with  the  mind  of  the  bishop;  which 
thing  also  ye  do.  For  your  honorable  presbytery,  which 
is  worthy  of  God,  is  attuned  to  the  bishop,  even  as  its 
strings  to  a  lyre.  Therefore,  in  your  concord  and  harmo¬ 
nious  love  Jesus  Christ  is  sung.  And  do  ye,  each  and  all, 
form  yourselves  into  a  chorus,  that  being  harmonious  in 
concord  and  taking  the  keynote  of  God,  ye  may  in  unison 
sing  with  one  voice  through  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  Father, 
that  He  may  both  hear  you  and  acknowledge  you  by  your 
good  deeds  to  be  members  of  His  Son.  It  is,  therefore, 
profitable  for  you  to  be  in  blameless  unity,  that  ye  may 
also  be  partakers  of  God  always.”  The  obedience  of  the 
faithful  to  the  bishop  must  be  of  the  most  perfect  har¬ 
mony.  Ignatius  shows  this  under  the  simile  of  a  lyre.  The 
bishop  is  the  lyre,  the  presbyters  the  strings  thereof,  the 
faithful  are  the  chorus.  The  strings  must  be  attuned  to 
the  bishop,  that  is,  the  presbyters  must  be  subject  to 
him.  The  faithful  must  sing  in  harmony  with  the  lyre 
through  obedience  to  the  bishop  and  presbyters.  By  this 
harmony  with  the  episcopate  we  “sing  with  one  voice 
through  Jesus  Christ  unto  the  Father.”  “Let  us,  there¬ 
fore,”  he  exhorts  them,  “be  careful  not  to  resist  the 
bishop,  that  by  our  submission  we  may  give  ourselves  to 
God”  (ch.  5). 

Ignatius  cannot  impress  too  strongly  the  importance 


56 


of  this  obedience  to  the  bishop  and  clergy.  He  refers  to 
it  again  nnder  the  figure  of  a  steward  and  his  household. 
‘‘For  every  one,’’  he  writes  in  chapter  6,  “whom  the 
Master  of  the  household  sendeth  to  be  steward  over  His 
own  house,  we  ought  so  to  receive  as  Him  that  sent  him. 
Plainly,  therefore,  we  ought  to  regard  the  bishop  as  the 
Lord  Himself.  Now  Onesimus  of  his  own  accord  highly 
praiseth  your  orderly  conduct  in  Grod,  for  that  ye  all  live 
according  to  truth,  and  that  no  heresy  hath  a  home  among 
you”  ...  A  steward’s  office  is  to  govern  the  af¬ 
fairs  of  his  master.  He  enjoys  authority  over  the  serv¬ 
ants  and  the  household  affairs.  He  makes  known  the 
master’s  orders.  He  acts  in  the  name  of  the  master.  The 
bishops,  according  to  Ignatius,  are  the  stewards  of  God. 
They  have  charge  of  His  household  here  on  earth,  namely, 
of  the  Church.  They  govern  the  faithful;  they  make 
known  God’s  will  to  man.  They  act  in  God’s  name.  They 
are  His  representatives.  Hence,  by  our  submission  to  the 
bishop,  God’s  steward,  we  give  ourselves  to  God. 

In  similar  strains  the  saintly  Bishop  speaks  to  the 
Magnesians.  After  praising  the  deacon,  Zotion,  for  his 
obedience  to  the  bishop,  he  says:  “Yea,  and  it  becometh 
you  also  not  to  presume  upon  the  youth  of  your  bishop, 
but  according  to  the  power  of  God  the  Father  to  render 
unto  him  all  reverence,  even  as  I  have  learned  that  the 
holy  presbyters  also  have  not  taken  advantage  of  his  out¬ 
wardly  youthful  estate,  but  give  place  to  him  as  to  one 
prudent  in  God ;  yet  not  to  him,  but  to  the  Father  of  Jesus 
Christ,  even  to  the  Bishop  of  all”  (ch.  3).  The  faithful 
should  see  in  their  bishop,  youthful  though  he  be,  the 
representative  of  God  Himself.  Obedience  to  the  bishop 
is  obedience  to  God  Himself.  Hence,  he  rebukes  those 
who  “have  the  bishop’s  name  on  their  lips,  but  in  every¬ 
thing  act  apart  from  him”  (ch.  4).  “Such  men,”  he  says, 
“appear  to  me  not  to  keep  a  good  conscience,  forasmuch 
as  they  do  not  assemble  themselves  together  lawfully  ac¬ 
cording  to  commandment”  (ch.  4). 


57 


In  chapter  6  he  continues:  ^‘Seeing  then  that  in  the 
aforementioned  persons  I  beheld  your  whole  people  in 
faith  and  embraced  them,  I  advise  you,  be  ye  zealous  to 
do  all  things  in  godly  concord,  the  bishop  presiding  after 
the  likeness  of  God  and  the  presbyters  after  the  likeness 
of  the  council  of  the  Apostles,  with  the  deacons  also  who 
are  most  dear  to  me,  having  been  entrusted  with  the 
diaconate  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  with  the  Father  be¬ 
fore  the  worlds  and  appeared  at  the  end  of  time.  There¬ 
fore,  do  ye  all  study  conformity  to  God  and  pay  reverence 
one  to  another ;  and  let  no  man  regard  his  neighbor  after 
the  flesh,  but  love  ye  one  another  in  Jesus  Christ  always. 
Let  there  be  nothing  among  you  which  shall  have  power 
to  divide  you,  but  be  ye  united  with  the  bishop  and  with 
them  that  preside  over  you  as  an  ensample  and  a  lesson 
of  incorruptibility.”  Here  is  another  striking  reference 
to  the  divine  authority  of  the  bishops  and  clergy.  The 
bishops  preside  after  the  likeness  of  God,  and  the  presby¬ 
ters  after  the  likeness  of  the  Apostles.  Hence,  nothing 
should  divide  the  people  from  the  bishops.  They  should 
be  united  with  the  latter  by  the  closest  bonds  of  obedi¬ 
ence.  How  great  this  dependence  on  the  bishops  must 
be,  is  indicated  in  the  following  passage:  ^‘Therefore,  as 
the  Lord  did  nothing  without  the  Father,  (being  united 
with  Him),  either  by  Himself  or  by  the  Apostles,  so 
neither  do  ye  anything  without  the  bishop  and  the  presby¬ 
ters”  (ch.  7).  A  greater  union  than  that  of  the  Father 
and  the  Son  cannot  be  imagined.  Yet  it  is  just  such  a 
union  that  Ignatius  wishes  to  have  between  the  bishops 
and  the  faithful. 

The  holy  Martyr  reveals  the  same  sentiments  in  his 
epistle  to  the  Trallians.  He  rejoices  that  the  Trallians 
are  imitators  of  God,  and  he  says:  ^‘For  when  ye  are 
obedient  to  the  bishop  as  to  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  evident  to 
me  that  ye  are  living  not  after  men,  but  after  Jesus 
Christ,  who  died  for  us,  that  believing  on  His  death  ye 
might  escape  death.  It  is,  therefore,  necessary,  even  as 


58 


your  wont  is,  that  ye  should  do  nothing  without  the 
bishop;  but  be  ye  obedient  also  to  the  presbytery,  as  to 
the  Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope ;  for  if  we  live  in 
Him,  we  shall  also  be  found  in  Him.  And  those  likewise 
who  are  deacons  of  the  mysteries  of  Jesus  Christ  must 
please  all  men  in  all  ways.  For  they  are  not  deacons  of 
meats  and  drinks,  but  servants  of  the  Church  of  God.  It 
is  right,  therefore,  that  they  should  beware  of  blame  as  of 
hre’’  (ch.  2).  Obedience  to  the  bishops  is  living  accord¬ 
ing  to  Jesus  Christ, — again  an  indication  of  the  divine 
authority  of  the  bishops.  Obedience  to  the  presbyters  is 
obedience  to  the  Apostles.  ‘Hn  like  manner,’^  he  con¬ 
tinues,  ‘Get  all  men  respect  the  deacons  as  Jesus  Christ, 
even  as  they  should  respect  the  bishop  as  being  a  type 
of  the  Father  and  the  presbyters  as  the  council  of  God 
and  as  the  college  of  Apostles.  Apart  from  these  there 
is  not  even  the  name  of  a  church’’  (ch.  3).  Surely  Igna¬ 
tius  could  not  be  more  explicit  or  more  insistent  on  the 
divine  authority  of  the  hierarchy.  Without  the  bishops, 
presbyters  and  deacons  there  cannot  even  be  the  name 
of  a  church.  They  are  the  conditio  sine  qua  non,  the 
foundation,  as  it  were,  upon  which  the  faithful  are 
founded.  It  is  from  these  men  that  the  faithful  must  re¬ 
ceive  their  doctrine.  All  other  teachers  they  must  avoid. 
Obedience  to  the  bishops  and  clergy  will  preserve  them 
from  the  poisonous  fruit  of  heresy.  More  forcibly  still 
does  he  insist  on  this  obedience  in  chapter  7.  After  warn¬ 
ing  the  Trallians  to  be  on  their  guard  against  heretics, 
he  writes:  “And  this  will  surely  be,  if  ye  be  not  puffed 
up  and  if  ye  be  inseparable  from  (God)  Jesus  Christ 
and  from  the  bishop  and  from  the  ordinances  of  the 
Apostles.  He  that  is  within  the  sanctuary  is  clean;  but 
he  that  is  without  the  sanctuary  is  not  clean,  that  is,  he 
that  doeth  aught  without  the  bishop  and  presbytery  and 
deacons,  this  man  is  not  clean  in  his  conscience.”  Here 
we  have  that  same  thought  expressed  so  often  by  Igna¬ 
tius,  namely,  union  with  the  bishop  is  union  with  Christ 


59 


Himself ;  and  at  the  same  time  we  have  the  express  state¬ 
ment  that  ‘‘he  that  doeth  aught  without  the  bishop  and 
presbytery  and  deacons  ...  is  not  clean  in  his  con¬ 
science/’  in  other  words,  is  in  sin.  Thereby  the  Saint 
shows  us  that  this  submission  to  the  hierarchy  is  an  im¬ 
portant  obligation  binding  under  penalty  of  sin. 

The  selfsame  thoughts  and  often,  too,  the  selfsame  ex¬ 
pressions  are  re-echoed  in  the  letter  to  the  Philadelphians. 
The  bishop  of  the  Philadelphians  Ignatius  praises,  be¬ 
cause  he  holds  “the  ministry  which  pertaineth  to  the 
common  weal,  not  of  himself  or  through  men,  nor  yet  for 
vain  glory,  but  in  the  love  of  God  the  Father  and  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  He  is  attuned  in  harmony 

with  the  commandments,  as  a  lyre  with  its  strings”  (ch. 
1).  Therefore,  the  faithful  as  children  of  truth  must 
obey  him, — “Where  the  shepherd  is,  there  follow  ye  as 
sheep,”  in  order  that  “the  specious  wolves  with  baneful 
delights”  may  not  “lead  captive  the  runners  in  God’s 
race”  (ch.  2).  Those  that,  are  “of  God  and  of  Jesus 
Christ,”  he  tells  them,  are  “with  the  bishop”  (ch.  3). 
That  they  might  not  be  seduced  by  the  false  teachers,  he 
reminds  them  how  he  warned  them  when  he  was  among 
them.  “I  cried  out,  when  I  was  among  you;  I  spake  with 
a  loud  voice,  with  God’s  own  voice.  Give  ye  heed  to  the 
bishop  and  the  presbytery  and  deacons  .  .  .  Ho  noth¬ 

ing  without  the  bishop”  (ch.  7).  Yet  those  who  have  been 
disobedient  should  not  lose  courage.  “The  Lord  for- 
giveth  all  men  when  they  repent,  if  repenting  they  return 
to  the  unity  of  God  and  to  the  council  of  the  bishop” 
(ch.  8). 

In  his  letter  to  the  Smyrnians  Ignatius  inculcates  the 
same  truths  again.  Submission  to  the  bishop  is  the  one 
and  only  means  of  protection  against  false  doctrines. 
“Do  ye  all  follow  your  bishop,”  he  writes,  “as  Jesus 
Christ  followed  the  Father,  and  the  presbytery  as  the 
Apostles;  and  to  the  deacons  pay  respect,  as  to  God’s 
commandment.  Let  no  man  do  aught  of  things  pertaining 
5 


60 


to  the  Church  apart  from  the  bishop.  Let  that  be  held 
a  valid  eucharist  which  is  under  the  bishop  or  one  to 
whom  he  shall  have  committed  it.  Wheresoever  the  bishop 
shall  appear,  there  let  the  people  be;  even  as  where  Jesus 
may  be,  there  is  the  universal  Church.  It  is  not  lawful 
apart  from  the  bishop  either  to  baptize' or  hold  a  love- 
feast;  but  whatsoever  he  shall  approve,  this  is  well¬ 
pleasing  also  to  Grod;  that  everything  which  ye  do  may 
be  sure  and  valid (ch.  8).  ‘‘It  is  good  to  recognise  God 
and  the  bishop.  He  that  honoreth  the  bishop  is  honored 
of  God ;  he  that  doeth  aught  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
bishop  rendereth  service  to  the  deviP’  (ch.  9).  In  his 
epistle  to  Polycarp,  he  says :  “Give  ye  heed  to  the  bishop, 
that  God  also  may  give  heed  to  you.  I  am  devoted  to 
those  who  are  subject  to  the  bishop,  the  presbyters,  the 
deacons.  May  it  be  granted  me  to  have  my  portion  with 
them  in  the  presence  of  God^^  (ch.  6). 

Thus,  according  to  the  mind  of  Ignatius  the  bishops 
are  the  representatives  of  God,  the  ambassadors  of 
Christ,  the  stewards  of  His  household.  They  are  the 
divinely  authorized  teachers  of  Christendom,  they  are 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  the  custodians  of  the 
apostolic  doctrine,  and  the  only  true  exponents  of  that 
doctrine.  For  that  reason  the  faithful  must  obey  them  and 
respect  them.  They  must  be  united  with  them,  they  must 
live  in  harmony  with  them,  they  must  submit  to  them. 
And  this  union  with  the  bishops,  this  obedience  and 
submission  to  them,  is  the  safeguard  and  protection 
against  heresy. 

The  Ignatian  Letters,  therefore,  atford  a  powerful 
argument  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith.  The 
bishops,  as  the  divinely  appointed  teachers  of  the  apos¬ 
tolic  doctrine,  are  the  teaching  authority  in  the  Church 
of  God.  The  doctrine  they  propound  is  that  received 


The  ante-Nicene  translation  has  “  catholic.”  The  Greek  word  is 

KadoXlKTI. 


61 


from  the  Apostles  themselves,  and  preserved  in  the 
Church ;  hence  the  apostolic  tradition. 

The  Letters  of  Ignatius  are,  moreover,  a  strong  refuta¬ 
tion  of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith.  For,  in  the  first  place, 
private  interpretation  is  severely  condemned.  The  teach¬ 
ing  authority  of  the  bishops  is  the  only  legitimate  stand¬ 
ard.  Secondly,  there  is  nothing  said  of  the  Bible.  The 
Bible  is  not  the  sole  rule  of  faith  in  the  mind  of  Ignatius. 
Evidently  he  regards  the  written  Word  as  part  of  the 
apostolic  teaching,  but  it  is  the  apostolic  tradition^  the 
doctrine  that  was  deposited  with  the  bishops,  and  of 
which  they  alone  are  the  interpreters,  that  was  upper¬ 
most  in  the  mind  of  the  Martyr.  And  this  apostolic  tra¬ 
dition  together  with  the  written  word  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  taught  and  interpreted  by  the  bishops,  is  accord¬ 
ing  to  him  the  only  true  rule  of  faith. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


St.  Polycakp,  Bishop  of  Smykna. 

1.  As  a  witness  for  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

Closely  associated  with  Ignatius  is  Polycarp,  Bishop 
of  Smyrna.  Polycarp  was  born  probably  about  the  year 
69  or  70  A.  D.^  Of  his  early  history  nothing  is  known 
with  certainty.  Irenaeus  states  that  he  was  a  disciple  of 
the  Apostles  and  was  appointed  to  a  bishopric  in  Asia 
by  the  Apostles  themselves.  ‘‘And  (so  it  was  with)  Poly¬ 
carp  also,  who  was  not  only  taught  by  Apostles  and  lived 
in  familiar  intercourse  with  many  that  had  seen  Christ, 
but  also  received  his  appointment  in  Asia  from  Apostles, 
as  bishop  in  the  Church  of  Smyrna.’’^  Tertullian  says 
he  was  named  bishop  of  Smyrna  by  St.  John.^ 

Intimately  associated  with  Polycarp  was  his  friend  and 
disciple  Irenaeus.  It  was  from  the  devoted  Bishop  of 
Smyrna  that  Irenaeus  learned  to  know  and  to  love  the 
Catholic  faith,  as  he  himself  tells  us  in  his  letter  to 
Florinus.  Writing  to  his  former  friend  and  companion, 
he  recalls  the  happy  days,  when  together  Florinus  and 
he  sat  at  the  feet  of  the  venerable  Bishop  and  listened  to 
the  words  of  faith  and  fervor  that  fell  from  his  lips.  “For 
I  saw  thee,’^  he  writes,  “when  I  was  still  a  boy  in  Lower 
Asia  in  company  with  Polycarp,  while  thou  wast  faring 
prosperously  in  the  royal  court  and  endeavoring  to  stand 
well  with  him.  For  I  distinctly  remember  the  incidents 
of  that  time  better  than  the  events  of  recent  occurrence ; 
for  the  lessons  received  from  childhood  growing  with 
the  growth  of  the  soul,  become  identified  with  it ;  so  that 

^Lightfoot,  op.  cit.,  Part  II,  Vol.  I,  p.  422. 

^  Adv.  Haer.,  Ill,  3,  4. 

®  De  Praesci'iptionibus,  ch.  32. 

62 


63 


I  can  tell  the  very  place  in  which  the  blessed  Polycarp 
nsed  to  sit  when  he  discoursed,  and  his  goings  out  and  his 
comings  in,  and  his  manner  of  life,  and  his  personal  ap¬ 
pearance,  and  the  discourses  which  he  held  before  the 
people,  and  how  he  would  describe  his  intercourse  with 
John  and  with  the  rest  of  those  who  had  seen  the  Lord, 
and  how  he  would  relate  their  words.  And  whatsoever 
things  he  had  heard  from  them  about  the  Lord  and  about 
his  miracles  and  about  his  teaching.  Poly  carp,  as  having 
received  them  from  eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  the  Word, 
would  relate  altogether  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures. 
To  these  things  I  nsed  to  listen  at  the  time  with  attention 
by  God^s  mercy  which  was  bestowed  upon  me,  noting 
them  down  not  on  paper,  but  in  my  heart ;  and  constantly, 
by  the  grace  of  God,  I  ruminate  upon  them  faithfully. 

In  this  touching  description  of  his  venerable  master, 
Irenaens  shows  that  it  was  the  things  that  he  had  heard 
from  the  Apostles,  their  discourses  and  their  teaching  on 
the  Lord  and  His  works  that  Polycarp  taught.  Unflinch¬ 
ing  fidelity  to  the  apostolic  teaching  and  tradition  was 
the  strong  characteristic  of  the  Saint.  This  fidelity  shone 
forth  in  all  his  actions.  He  ‘  ‘  ever  taught  these  very  things 
which  he  had  learnt  from  the  Apostles,  which  the  Church 
hands  down  and  which  alone  are  true.  ’  He  also,  when  on 
a  visit  to  Rome  in  the  days  of  Anicetus,”  Irenaens  says, 
‘‘converted  many  to  the  Church  of  God  from  following 
the  aforenamed  heretics  by  preaching  that  he  had  re¬ 
ceived  from  the  Apostles  this  doctrine,  and  this  only 
which  was  handed  down  by  the  Church  as  the  truth.”® 
When  Pope  Anicetus  desired  that  he  conform  to  the 
Western  Church  regarding  the  Easter  celebration.  Poly¬ 
carp  refused  on  the  ground  that  he  could  not  give  up  a 
custom,  which  he  had  learned  from  St.  John  and  the 

^  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  V,  20.  'Gfr.  Lightfoot,  op.  cit.,  p.  429. 

®  Adv.  Eaer.,  Ill,  3,  4. 

®  Op.  cit.,  Ill,  3,  4. 


64 


Apostles.'^  Anicetus  must  have  admired  the  faithfulness 
of  the  venerable  Bishop,  for  we  are  told,  he  did  not  insist 
on  the  change,  and  both  parted  in  peace.  Polycarp  is 
thus  a  powerful  witness  for  the  apostolic  tradition.  Of 
private  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  he  has  nothing 
favorable  to  say. 

His  loyalty  to  the  apostolic  doctrine  made  him  the 
avowed  enemy  of  heretics  and  filled  him  with  an  abhor¬ 
rence  for  heresy.  Like  Ignatius  he  shunned  false  teach¬ 
ers  as  one  would  a  wild  beast.  "When  Marcion  confronted 
him  one  day  and  asked  if  he  recognized  him.  Polycarp  ^s 
simple  reply  was:  ‘‘Ay,  ay,  I  recognize  the  first-born  of 
Satan.’’®  He  had  such  horror  for  any  doctrine  contrary 
to  that  of  the  Apostles,  that,  as  Irenaeus  remarks,  if  he 
heard  any  false  teaching,  ‘‘he  would  have  cried  out  and 
stopped  his  ears,  and  would  have  said  after  his  wont,  ‘  0 
good  God,  for  what  times  hast  thou  kept  me,  that  I  should 
endure  such  things,’  and  would  have  fled  from  the  very 
place  where  he  was  sitting  or  standing.  ’ 

It  was  this  apostolic  spirit  that  endeared  the  holy 
Bishop  to  Ignatius,  the  Martyr.  To  Ignatius  PolyCarp 
is  an  ‘immovable  rock,’  an  ‘anvil,’  firm  ‘under  the  ham¬ 
mer’s  strokes, a  most  faithful  copy  of  the  Apostles  and 
a  firm  adherent  of  their  doctrines.  False  teaching  can 
not  swerve  him  from  the  truth.  This  loyalty  to  Apostolic 
teaching  was  the  bond  that  drew  Ignatius  to  him.  Igna¬ 
tius  with  his  horror  of  heresy  and  hatred  of  heretics 
w’ould  never  have  been  intimate  with  any  one  hut  a  lover 
of  the  apostolic  tradition. 

Like  Ignatius,  too,  he  would  die  rather  than  deny  his 
faith.  When  a  persecution  broke  out  in  Smyrna,  Poly¬ 
carp  was  apprehended.  He  could  have  escaped,  had  he 
chosen  to  do  so,  hut  he  preferred  death  to  life.  When 


^  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  V,  24. 
®  Adv.  Eaer.,  Ill,  3,  4. 

®  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  V,  20. 
Ep.  to  Polyc.,  1  and  3. 


65 


urged  by  the  proconsul  to  swear  by  the  genius  of  Caesar 
and  to  revile  Christ  his  God,  the  aged  Bishop  gave  this 
memorable  answer,  so  characteristic  of  his  unswerving 
fidelity:  ^‘Four  score  and  six  years  have  I  served  Him, 
and  He  hath  done  me  no  wrong.  How  then  can  I  speak 
evil  of  my  King,  who  saved  meF’^^ 

The  testimony  of  this  saintly  Bishop,  the  disciple  of  St. 
John,  the  master  of  Irenaeus,  the  friend  of  Ignatius  and 
a  martyr  for  the  faith,  is  of  the  greatest  value. 

2.  Letter  to  the  Philippians. 

According  to  Irenaeus,  Polycarp  wrote  several  epistles 
^Go  neighboring  communities  to  strenghten  them  in  their 
faith  and  also  to  individual  brethren  to  teach  and  admon¬ 
ish  them.  ’  ‘  ‘  There  is  also,  ^  ’  he  says,  ‘  ‘  a  very  excellent 

letter  of  Polycarp  to  the  Philippians  from  which  those 
who  are  of  good  will  and  are  intent  upon  their  salvation 
can  see  the  form  of  his  faith  and  the  preaching  of  truth. 
Eusebius^^  and  Jerome^^  speak  only  of  this  one  epistle. 
It  is  the  only  work  of  Polycarp  that  has  come  down  to  us. 
Merely  fragments  of  the  Greek  original  are  extant,  but 
the  entire  work  is  to  be  found  in  an  old  Latin  translation. 

The  letter  was  written  shortly  after  Ignatius’  martyr¬ 
dom  (ca.  117  A.D.)  at  the  request  of  the  Philippians.  The 
work  was  highly  prized  by  the  early  Christians  and  as 
late  as  the  fourth  century  some  communities  were  wont 
to  read  it  at  divine  service.^® 

A  few  critics  have  denied  the  authenticity  and  integrity 
of  the  epistle,  because  it  refers  to  the  Ignatian  Letters. 
But  this  view  is  discredited  by  the  great  run  of  modern 

Mart.  S.  Polyc.,  9,  3. 

Ep.  ad  Flor.,  in  Ens.,  Hist.  Eccles.,  V,  20,  6. 

Iren.,  Adv.  Haer.,  Ill,  3,  4. 

Hist.  Eccles.,  Ill,  36. 

De  Viris  Illustribus,  III,  17. 

St.  Jerome,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  17 :  “  Scripsit  ad  PMlippenses  valde  utilem 
epistolam,  quae  usque  hodie  in  Asiae  conventu  legitur.” 


66 


scholars.  Its  authenticity  is  guaranteed  by  Irenaeus, 
and  the  unity  of  the  work  is  proof  for  its  integrity. 

3.  The  Rule  of  Faith  in  Poly  carpus  Letter. 

The  Letter  to  the  Philippians  amply  bears  out  the  state¬ 
ment  of  Irenaeus  that  Poiycarp  preached  the  things  which 
he  had  heard  from  eye-witnesses  of  the  Lord  and  which 
the  Church  hands  down  and  which  alone  are  true.  In  no 
uncertain  terms  the  holy  Bishop  of  Smyrna  exhorts  the 
Christians  to  be  faithful  to  Christ’s  teaching,  which  they 
have  received  through  the  Apostles,  and  he  also  warns 
them  against  heresy  and  insists  on  obedience  to  the  pres¬ 
byters  and  deacons. 

Thus  in  chapter  1  we  read  C  ‘I  rejoiced  with  you  greatly 
in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  that  the  stedfast  root  of 
your  faith  which  was  famed  from  primitive  times  abideth 
until  now  and  beareth  fruit  unto  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.” 
Polycarp  praises  the  Philippians  because  they  have  kept 
the  faith  received  from  the  Apostle  St.  Paul.  In  chapter 
3  he  says :  ^‘For  neither  am  I,  nor  is  any  other  like  unto 
me,  able  to  follow  the  wisdom  of  the  blessed  and  glorious 
Paul,  who  when  he  came  among  you  taught  face  to  face 
with  the  men  of  that  day  the  word  which  concerneth  truth 
carefully  and  surely;  who  also,  when  he  was  absent,  wrote 
a  letter  unto  you,  into  the  which  if  ye  look  diligently,  ye 
shall  be  able  to  be  builded  up  unto  the  faith  given  to  you, 
which  is  the  mother  of  us  all.^^  .  .  .  Notice  that  it  is  the 
apostolic  faith  that  the  Philippians  have  preserved ;  and 
that  it  is  for  this  fidelity  to  apostolic  teaching  that  Poly- 
carp  commends  them. 

In  chapter  6  he  urges  them  to  continue  faithfully  in 
this  apostolic  doctrine.  ‘^Let  us  therefore  so  serve  Him 
(God)  with  fear  and  all  reverence,  as  He  Himself  gave 
commandment  and  the  Apostles  who  preached  the  Gospel 
to  us  and  the  prophets  who  proclaimed  beforehand  the 
coming  of  our  Lord ;  being  zealous  as  touching  that  which 
is  good,  abstaining  from  offences  and  from  the  false 


67 


brethren  and  from  them  that  bear  the  name  of  the  Lord 
in  hypocrisy,  who  lead  foolish  men  astray/’  In  this 
exhortation  to  serve  God  with  fear  and  reverence  as 
Christ  Himself  commanded  and  the  Apostles  preached, 
Polycarp  condemns  private  interpretation  and  bears  wit¬ 
ness  to  the  authoritative  teaching  power  of  the  Church. 
The  faithful  must  be  on  their  guard  against  those,  who 
deviating  from  the  apostolic  doctrine,  teach  false  things 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  and  lead  the  foolish  astray. 

Those  who  disregard  this  teaching  authority  and  allow 
themselves  to  be  influenced  by  false  teachers,  the  advo¬ 
cates  of  private  judgment  in  religious  affairs,  are  severe¬ 
ly  condemned  in  chapter  7.  ^‘Por  every  one,”  we  read, 
^^wlio  shall  not  confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh,  is  antichrist;  and  whosoever  shall  not  confess  the 
testimony  of  the  Cross  is  of  the  devil;  and  whosoever 
shall  pervert  the  oracles  of  the  Lord  to  his  own  lusts  and 
say  that  there  is  neither  resurrection  nor  judgment,  that 
man  is  the  first-born  of  Satan.”  These  are  strong  terms ; 
Polycarp  could  hardly  say  anything  worse.  Any  one  who 
teaches  a  doctrine  different  from  that  received  from  the 
Apostles  is  antichrist,  of  the  devil  and  the  first-born  of 
Satan.  So  odious  is  heresy  to  him,  so  contrary  to  the 
teaching  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  is  private  interpre¬ 
tation  in  his  mind,  that  he  sees  in  false  teachers  and  advo¬ 
cates  of  private  opinions  the  very  minions  of  Satan. 

Like  Ignatius,  Polycarp  regards  obedience  to  the  bish¬ 
ops  and  deacons  as  the  only  safeguard  against  these  false 
teachers.  Wherefore,”  he  says  in  chapter  5,  ^Gt  is 
right  to  abstain  from  all  these  things  (namely,  sinful 
actions),  submitting  yourselves  to  the  presbyters  and 
deacons  as  to  God  and  Christ.”  And  in  chapter  7 
he  writes:  ^‘Wherefore  let  us  forsake  the  vain  doing  of 
the  many  and  their  false  teachings,  and  turn  unto  the 
word  which  was  delivered  unto  us  from  the  beginning.” 
It  is  plain  that  he  looks  upon  the  presbyters  and  deacons 
as  the  representatives  of  God,  as  the  stewards  of  Christ’s 


.68 


household,  the  Church.  As  such  they  are  to  be  obeyed. 
As  the  representatives  of  God  they  have  divine  authority, 
they  are  the  custodians  of  the  apostolic  doctrine  and  they 
are  the  divinely  appointed  interpreters  of  this  doctrine. 
Therefore,  they,  and  they  alone,  have  the  one  true  doc¬ 
trine  which  leads  to  life  eternal,  the  one 'true  rule  of  faith. 

Polycarp’s  letter  is  thus  an  excellent  testimony  to  the 
Catholic  rule  of  faith.  It  condemns  private  interpreta¬ 
tion  and  insists  on  the  authorative  teaching  power  of  the 
Church.  Polycarp  lays  stress  on  the  teaching  handed 
down  in  the  Church,  the  teaching  preached  by  the  Apos¬ 
tles,  that  is,  the  apostolic  tradition.  He  does  not  disre¬ 
gard,  however,  the  written  Word.  It  also  contains 
apostolic  truth.  Polycarp’s  rule  of  faith,  therefore,  is 
the  apostolic  tradition,  handed  down  by  word  of  mouth 
and  by  the  Scriptures,  and  interpreted  by  the  authorita¬ 
tive  teaching  voice  of  the  Church. 


CHAPTEK  V. 


St.  Ikekaeus,  Bishop  of  Lyons. 

1.  As  a  Witness  to  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

St.  Clement,  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Polycarp  furnish  valu¬ 
able  evidence  for  the  rule  of  faith,  but  it  remains  for  St. 
Irenaeus  to  give  us  invaluable  testimony  and  irrefutable 
arguments  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  viewpoint.  He  is  in 
all  truth  the  outstanding  authority  of  the  period. 

Irenaeus  was  born  in  Asia  Minor,  possibly  in  or  near 
Smyrna,  where  he  seems  to  have  spent  his  early  years. 
The  date  of  his  birth  is  quite  uncertain.  Some  scholars 
put  it  as  early  as  97  A.  D.;  others  as  late  as  147  A.  D. 
Thus  Dodwell  favors  the  year  97  Grabe  assigns  the  year 
108  f  Zahn  prefers  the  year  115  TillemonP  and  Light- 
foot^  favor  the  year  120;  Swete  also  gives  this  date;  Geb- 
hart  prefers  126-130;^  Harvey  puts  it  in  the  year  130;® 
Massuet,®  Harnack,^^  Bardenhewer^^  argue  in  favor  of 
the  year  140,  and  Ziegler  would  have  it  in  the  year  147. 
Though  there  is  the  authority  of  Massuet,  Harnack  and 
Bardenhewer  for  the  year  140,  still  a  date  as  late  as  this 

^  Dissert.  Hi.  in  Iren,  6  sqq. 

^  Prolegomena,  sect,  i.,  1. 

®  Realencykl.  f.  prot.  Theol.  u.  Kir.,  9.  Bd.,  p.  409. 

^  Memoires,  III,  p.  79. 

®  The  Churches  of  Gaul,  in  Cont.  Rev.,  August,  1876,  p.  415. 

^Patristic  Study  (1902),  p.  35. 

Die  Zeitschrift  fur  die  Historische  Theologie,  1875,  p,  369. 

^  Proleg.,  Vol.  I,  p.  civ. 

”  Dissert,  ii.  in  Iren.,  p.  1. 

Gesch.  der  Altchr.  Liter.,  2,  1,  333. 

Op.  cit.,  1.  Bd.,  p.  400. 

Irenaeus  der  Bischof  von  Lyon,  p.  15. 


Note:  The  citations  of  Irenaeus  in  this  chapter  are  taken  from  the 
English  edition  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Fathers  (1903),  Vol.  I. 


69 


70 


hardly  fits  in  with  St.  Polycarp -s  lifespan.  It  mahes 
Irenaens  fifteen  years  old  at  the  time  of  Polycarp’s  death. 
The  letter  to  Florinns  seems  to  indicate  that  it  was  a  long 
time  since  Irenaens  and  Florinns  sat  at  the  feet  of  the 
saintly  Bishop — ^possibly  more  than  30  or  40  years.  Hence 
the  vear  130  seems  to  conform  better  with  the  evidence 
at  hand. 

In  order  to  appreciate  better  the  testimony  of  this  great 
champion  of  the  Chnrch,  it  is  necessary  to  know  the  posi¬ 
tion  he  held  in  the  Chnrch.  Irenaens  was,  in  the  first 
place,  a  disciple  of  the  saintly  Polycarp.  It  was  from 
this  holy  Bishop  that  he  learned  the  apostolic  doctrine. 
It  was  from  him,  too,  that  he  learned  to  love  and  cherish 
this  teaching.  Earlv  intimacv  had  cemented  the  two 
together.  Pnpil  and  master  had  become  in  a  manner  one. 
So  great  was  the  esteem  of  Irenaens  for  his  old  teacher 

C-. 

that  years  afterward  we  find  him  manifestmg  his  affec¬ 
tion  for  Polycarp  in  his  letter  to  his  former  friend  and 
companion  Flormns.  The  latter  had  imbibed  some  of  the 
heretic  doctrines  of  the  time  to  the  great  grief  of  Irenaens. 
Irenaens  remonstrates  with  his  friend  and  tries  to  lead 
him  back  from  the  darkness  of  error.  He  recalls  the 
happy  memories  of  the  past  when  together  they  sat  at 
the  feet  of  Polycarp. 

“These  opinions,  Florinns,”  he  writes,  “that  I  speak 
withont  harshness,  are  not  of  sonnd  jndgment ;  these  opin¬ 
ions  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  Chnrch,  bnt  involve 
those  who  adopt  them  in  the  greatest  impiety ;  these  opm- 
ions  even  the  heretics  ontside  the  pale  of  the  Chnrch  have 
never  ventnred  to  broach;  these  opinions  the  elders  be¬ 
fore  ns,  who  also  were  disciples  of  the  Apostles,  did  not 
hand  down  to  thee.  For  I  saw  thee,  when  I  was  still 
a  boy  ( Trot?  €Ti  b)v),  in  Lower  Asia  in  company  with 
Polycarp,  while  thon  wast  faring  prosperonsly  in  the 
royal  conrt  and  endeavoring  to  stand  well  with  him.  For 
I  distinctly  remember  {BLafijnjfioveuco)  the  incidents  of 
that  time  better  than  the  events  of  recent  occnrrence; 


71 


I 


for  the  lessons  received  from  childhood  {i^  7raic<ov) 
growing  with  the  growth  of  the  sonl,  become  identified 
with  it;  so  that  I  can  tell  the  very  place  in  which  the 
blessed  Polycarp  nsed  to  sit  when  he  disconrsed,  and  his 
goings  ont  and  his  comings  in,  and  his  manner  of  life, 
and  his  personal  appearance,  and  the  disconrses  which  he 
held  before  the  people  {irpts  to  and  how  he  would 

describe  his  intercourse  with  John  and  with  the  rest  of 
those  who  had  seen  the  Lord,  and  how  he  would  relate 
their  words.  And  whatsoever  things  he  had  heard  from 
them  about  the  Lord  and  about  His  miracles  and  about 
His  teaching,  Polycarp,  as  having  received  them  from 
eye-witnesses  of  the  life  of  the  Word,  would  relate  alto¬ 
gether  in  accordance  with  the  Scriptures.  To  these  things 
I  used  to  listen  at  the  time  with  attention  hv  God’s  mercv 
which  was  bestowed  upon  me,  noting  them  down  not  on 
paper  but  in  my  heart;  and  constantly,  by  the  grace  of 
God,  I  ruminate  upon  them  faithfully  {^vtiglos;).  And 
I  can  testify  in  the  sight  of  God,  that  if  that  blessed  and 
apostolic  elder  had  heard  anything  of  this  kind,  he  would 
have  cried  ont,  and  stopped  his  ears,  and  would  have  said 
after  his  wont,  ‘0  good  God,  for  what  times  hast  thou 
kept  me,  that  I  should  endure  these  things,’  and  would 
have  fled  from  the  very  place  where  he  was  sitting  or 
standing  when  he  heard  such  words.  And  indeed  this  can 
be  shown  from  his  letters,  which  he  wrote  either  to  the 
neighhouiing  churches  for  their  confirmation  or  to  certain 
of  the  brethren  for  their  warning  and  exhortation.  ’ 

In  such  strong  and  fervent  language  did  Irenaeus  plead 
with  Florinus  to  abandon  the  error  of  his  wav.  One  can 
not  fail  to  note  the  zeal  and  apostolic  spirit  of  the  writer. 
The  beautiful  and  touching  description  of  the  venerable 
instructor,  closing  his  ears  to  error  and  running  away  at 
the  very  sound  of  it,  as  if  it  were  a  deadly  pestilence, 
while  showing  Polycarp’s  abhorrence  for  heresy,  reveals 


The  translation  is  taken  from  Lightfoot.  op.  cif..  Part  n,  VoL  I.  p.  429. 


72 


at  the  same  time  a  like  trait  in  his  pupil.  Irenaeus,  too, 
had  the  greatest  hatred  of  heresy,  yet  how  vastly  differ¬ 
ent  was  his  conduct  toward  it !  Polycarp  fled  from  heresy, 
Irenaeus  pursued  it.  Polycarp  would  flee  from  Florinus, 
Irenaeus  would  go  after  him,  and  call  him  back  from  the 
error  of  his  ways.  Polycarp  would  stop  his  ears  at  the 
very  sound  of  false  doctrines,  Irenaeus  preferred  to 
study  it,  that  he  might  refute  it.  Poly  carp  fled  from  false 
teachers,  Irenaeus  would  rather  confront  them  and  com¬ 
bat  them,  and  prove  to  them  that  they  were  wrong. 

Having  been  schooled  in  the  apostolic  doctrine  and  cus¬ 
toms  by  Polycarp,  Irenaeus  was  sent  as  a  presbyter  to 
Gaul.  With  the  bold  and  fearless  spirit  of  another  Paul 
he  gave  up  fortune,  fame  and  friends,  and  settled  amidst 
a  rude  and  barbarous  people,  in  order  to  spread  the  glad 
tidings  of  the  Gospel.  With  true  apostolic  zeal  he  went 
about  like  his  Master,  not  only  preaching  in  season  and 
out  of  season,  but  also  contending  and  writing  against  the 
many  popular  heresies  of  the  time. 

An  excellent  tribute  to  his  zeal  is  accorded  him  by  the 
suffering  clergy  of  Lyons  and  Vienne.  While  languish¬ 
ing  in  prison  and  awaiting  for  their  end,  these  holy 
martyrs  commissioned  Irenaeus  to  represent  them  before 
Pope  Eleutherus  concerning  Montanist  troubles  that  had 
arisen.  In  a  letter  which  they  addressed  to  the  Bishop 
of  Pome  they  speak  of  Irenaeus  as  ‘one  zealous  for  the 
Testament  of  Christ.^  “We  have  requested  our  brother 
and  comrade,  Irenaeus, the  letter  reads,  “to  carry  this 
letter  to  you,  and  we  ask  you  to  hold  him  in  esteem  as 
zealous  for  the  covenant  of  Christ. 

On  his  return  to  Gaul  Irenaeus  was  appointed  bishop 
of  Lyons  to  succeed  St.  Pothinus,  who  had  just  been  mar¬ 
tyred  in  the  persecution  under  Marcus  Aurelius.  It  was 
in  the  midst  of  troublous  times  that  he  assumed  the  over¬ 
sight  of  this  portion  of  the  Lord^s  vineyard.  A  terrible 

Eus.,  Hist,  eccles.,  V,  4,  2.  The  translation  is  from  the  Nicene  and 
Post-Nicene  Fathers,  Second  Series,  Vol.  I,  Xew  York,  1904. 


73 


persecution  was  just  drawing  to  a  close,  and  the  heresies 
of  Valentinus,  Marcion  and  Basilides  were  making  violent 
inroads  on  the  young  Christian  communities,  threatening 
their  very  destruction.  Irenaeus,  however,  was  equal  to 
the  position.  He  proved  himself  a  true  shepherd  to  his  af¬ 
flicted  flock.  Unremitting  in  his  quest  for  souls  and  fear¬ 
less  in  his  encounters  with  the  subverters  of  the  faith,  he 
spared  no  labor  and  shrank  from  no  danger  where  there 
was  question  of  the  glory  of  God  and  the  Church.  Zeal¬ 
ous,  active,  faithful,  persevering,  bold,  intrepid  and 
learned,  he  was  especially  gifted  to  ferret  out  and  expose 
the  many  heresies  that  were  then  uniting  their  forces 
against  the  Church.  Even  Tertullian  recognizes  his  talent 
in  this  regard  and  calls  him,  Omnium  doctrinarum  cm- 
riosissimus  explorator/^  the  most  curious  searcher  into 
all  kinds  of  doctrines.^® 

He  carried  on  his  warfare  against  the  false  Gnosis 
chiefly  by  writing.  At  the  request  of  a  friend,  who  wished 
to  know  more  about  the  Valentinian  heresy,  he  wrote  his 
monumental  work,  ‘  ‘  The  Detection  and  Overthrow  of  the 
Pretended  but  False  Gnosis,’’  commonly  known  as  Ad- 
versus  Haereses.  It  is  an  excellent  exposition  of  Gnos¬ 
ticism  under  its  various  forms  together  with  an  exposition 
and  refutation  of  the  principal  heresies  that  were  gaining 
foothold  in  the  Christian  communities.  In  refuting  the 
different  errors  Irenaeus  laws  down  the  true  doctrine  of 
the  Church,  and  thus  furnishes  invaluable  information 
on  the  early  Church. 

The  work  is  of  the  highest  importance  because  it  gives 
us  the  testimony  of  a  contemporary  of  the  heroic  age  of 
the  Church,  and  of  one  whose  testimony,  as  Lightfoot  re¬ 
marks,  ‘‘must  be  regarded  as  directly  representing  three 
Churches  at  least,  — the  Church  of  Asia  Minor,  where 
he  received  his  early  education,  the  Church  of  South  Gaul, 

Adv.  Talent. 

Essays  on  Supernatural  Religion,  p.  267. 


74 


in  which  he  labored  for  years,  and  the  Church  of  Eome, 
which  he  visited.  Mosheim  calls  it,  ‘‘one  of  the  most 
precious  monuments  of  ancient  erudition. And  Swete 
does  not  hesitate  to  style  Irenaeus  himself  ‘  ‘  the  first  con¬ 
structive  theologian  on  the  Catholic  side.’^^® 

The  date  of  composition  must  be  determined  by  the  pas¬ 
sage  III,  3,  3  in  which  Irenaeus  speaks  of  Eleutherus  as 
being  at  that  time  the  twelfth  in  succession  on  the  See  of 
St.  Peter.  According  to  this  statement  the  third  book 
must  have  been  written  at  the  earliest  174  or  175  A.  D. 
or  at  the  latest  189  A.  D.,  for  Eleutherus^  pontificate  is 
reckoned  from  174-189.  The  commencement  and  com¬ 
pletion  of  the  work  were  probably  some  years  apart.  The 
first  three  books  may  have  been  written  between  the  years 
180-189  A.  D.  and  the  last  two  books  during  the  period 
from  189  to  199  A.  D. 

Although  originally  composed  in  Greek,  the  work  has 
come  down  to  us  only  in  a  Latin  version,  a  very  slavish 
translation  of  the  original,  made  very  soon  after  the 
original  was  written. 

During  the  reign  of  Pope  Victor  I  (189-199)  Irenaeus 
took  an  active  part  in  the  controversy  that  arose  concern¬ 
ing  the  Easter  celebration.  According  to  Eusebius  he 
succeeded  in  effecting  a  happy  compromise  between  the 
East  and  the  West,  ‘doing  honor  to  his  name  (  ElprjvaLo^) 
and  bearing  himself  as  a  peacemaker  {elpr^voTroio^) 

The  date  of  his  death  is  unknown,  though  critics  usually 
assign  it  to  the  last  part  of  the  second  century  or  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  third.  If  St.  Jerome  ^s  testimony  can  be 
trusted,  he  suffered  martyrdom  under  Septimus  Severus 
(193-211  A.  D.).^^ 


Eocles.  Hist.,  Vol.  I,  p,  146. 
Op.  cit.,  p.  36. 

Hist.  Eccles.,  V,  24,  18. 
Comm,  in  Is.  ad  64,  4  ff. 


2.  Rule  of  Faith  in  the  Work  Adversus  HaeresesW 

Ill  this  ^most  precious  monument  of  ancient  erudition’ 
there  is  abundant  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  rule 
of  faith.  In  book  iii  (preface)  Irenaeus  says  that  the 
only  true  and  vivifying  faith  is  that  which  the  Church 
has  received  from  the  apostles  and  imparted  to  her  sons. 
For  the  Lord  of  all  gave  to  his  apostles  the  power  of  the 
Gospel;  through  whom  also  we  have  known  the  truth, 
that  is,  the  doctrine  of  the  Son  of  God ;  to  whom  also  did 
the  Lord  declare:  ‘He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  Me;  and 
he  that  despiseth  you,  despiseth  Me  and  Him  that  sent 
Me.  ’  ’  ’  And  in  chapter  1  of  the  same  hook  he  continues : 
“We  have  learned  from  none  others  the  plan  of  our  salva¬ 
tion  than  from  those  through  whom  the  Gospel  has  come 
down  to  us,  which  they  did  at  one  time  proclaim  in  public, 
and,  at  a  later  period,  by  the  will  of  God,  handed  down  to 
us  in  the  Scriptures,  to  be  the  ground  and  pillar  of  our 
faith.  For  it  is  unlawful  to  assert  that  they  preached 
before  they  possessed  ‘perfect  knowledge’  as  some  do 
even  venture  to  say,  boasting  themselves  as  improvers 
of  the  apostles.  For  after  our  Lord  rose  from  the  dead, 
(the  apostles)  were  invested  with  power  from  on  high 
when  the  Holy  Spirit  came  down  (upon  them),  were 
filled  from  all  (His  gifts),  and  had  perfect  knowledge; 
they  departed  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  preaching  the 
glad  tidings  of  the  good  things  (sent)  from  God  to  us, 
and  proclaiming  the  peace  of  heaven  to  men,  who  indeed 
do  all  equally  and  individually  possess  the  Gospel  of 
God.  ’  ’ 

Irenaeus  brings  out  several  important  facts  in  these 
passages.  First,  he  declares  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Church  is  apostolic.  “The  only  true  and  life-giving 
faith  is  that  which  the  Church  has  received  from  the 
apostles.”  “We  have  learned  from  none  others  the  plan 
of  our  salvation  than  from  those  through  whom  the  Gos¬ 
pel  has  come  down  to  us.”  Secondly,  he  says,  that  this 
6 


76 


apostolic  teaching  is  the  one  true  teaching  of  Christ. 
^‘For  the  Lord  of  all  has  given  to  his  apostles  the  power 
of  the  gospel,’^  and  ‘‘the  apostles  were  invested  with 
power  from  on  high,  when  the  Holy  Spirit  came  down 
upon  them.’’  Thirdly,  he  tells  us  that  the  apostles  im¬ 
parted  this  doctrine  to 'the  Church  in  a  two-fold  way, 
namely,  by  preaching  and  by  writing — “which  they  did 
at  one  time  proclaim  in  public,  and,  at  a  later  period,  by 
the  will  of  Grod,  handed  down  to  us  in  the  Scriptures,  to 
be  the  ground  and  pillar  of  our  faith;”  and  “they 'de¬ 
parted  to  the  ends  of  the  earth  preaching  the  glad  tidings 
sent  from  God  to  us.”  Finally,  he  writes,  all  those  who 
hold  a  doctrine  different  from  that  of  the  Church,  a  doc¬ 
trine  different  from  that  which  the  Church  has  received 
from  the  apostles  through  tradition  and  Scripture,  have 
not  the  truth.  “For  it  is  unlawful  to  assert  that  they 
(namely,  the  apostles)  preached  before  they  possessed 
‘perfect  knowledge’  as  some  do  even  venture  to  say, boast¬ 
ing  themselves  as  improvers  of  the  apostles.”  Irenaeus 
thus  bears  witness  to  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith,  namely, 
the  apostolic  doctrine  contained  in  Scripture  and  tradi¬ 
tion  and  deposited  with  the  Church,  and  likewise  taught 
and  interpreted  by  that  same  Church. 

In  the  same  chapter  he  continues:  “Matthew  also  is¬ 
sued  a  written  Gospel  among  the  Hebrews  in  their  own 
dialect,  while  Peter  and  Paul  were  preaching  at  Rome, 
and  laying  the  foundations  of  the  Church.  After  their 
departure,  Mark,  the  disciple  and  interpreter  of  Peter, 
did  also  hand  down  to  us  in  writing  what  had  been 
preached  by  Peter.  Luke  also,  the  companion  of  Paul, 
recorded  in  a  book  the  Gospel  preached  by  him.  After¬ 
wards,  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  who  also  had  leaned 
upon  His  breast,  did  himself  publish  a  Gospel  during  his 
residence  at  Ephesus  in  Asia.” 

Irenaeus  thus  vouches  for  the  apostolic  origin  of  the 
four  gospels.  He  is  especially  insistent  on  the  apostolic 
tradition,  but  at  the  same  time  he  stresses  the  importance 


77 


of  the  written  word.  ‘‘These  have  all  declared  to  ns,’^ 
he  writes,  “that  there  is  one  God,  Creator  of  heaven  and 
earth,  announced  by  the  law  and  the  prophets;  and  one 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  If  anyone  do  not  agree  to  these 
truths,  he  despises  the  companions  of  the  Lord;  nay  more, 
he  despises  Christ  Himself  the  Lord;  yea,  he  despises 
the  Father  also,  and  stands  self-condemned,  resisting 
and  opposing  his  own  salvation,  as  is  the  case  with  all 
heretics.”  Remember  Irenaeus  is  writing  against  the 
Gnostics,  and  hence  is  defending  the  oneness  of  God  and 
the  divinity  of  Christ.  The  heretics  by  denying  these 
truths,  Irenaeus  says,  go  against  the  written  word  of  the 
Apostles,  and  thereby  resist  their  eternal  salvation.  And 
he  adds,  not  only  those  who  deny  these  doctrines,  but  all 
heretics,  whatsoever  their  doctrine,  by  opposing  the 
apostolic  teaching  imperil  their  eternal  salvation.  This 
is  an  explicit  condemnation  of  private  interpretation. 

In  chapter  2,  1  he  shows  the  insincerity  of  the  false 
teachers.  “When,  however,”  he  writes,  “they  are  con¬ 
futed  from  the  Scriptures,  they  turn  round  and  accuse 
these  same’  Scriptures,  as  if  they  were  not  correct,  nor 
of  authority,  and  (assert)  that  they  are  ambiguous,  and 
that  the  truth  can  not  be  extracted  from  them  by  those 
who  are  ignorant  of  tradition.  For  (they  allege)  that  the 
truth  was  not  delivered  by  means  of  written  documents, 
but  viva  voce;  wherefore  also  Paul  declared,  ‘But  wm 
speak  wisdom  among  those  that  are  perfect,  but  not  the 
wisdom  of  this  world.  ’  And  this  wdsdom  each  one  of 
them  alleges  to  be  the  fiction  of  his  own  inventing,  for¬ 
sooth  ;  so  that,  according  to  their  idea,  the  truth  properly 
resides  at  one  time  in  Valentinus,  at  another  in  Marcion, 
at  another  in  Cerinthus,  then  afterwards  in  Basilides,  or 
has  even  been  indifferently  in  any  other  opponent,  who 
could  speak  nothing  pertaining  to  salvation.  For  every 
one  of  these  men,  being  altogether  of  a  perverse  disposi- 

21 1  Cor.  ii,  16. 


78 


tioii,  depraving  the  system  of  truth,  is  not  ashamed  to 
preach  himself.” 

Refuted  from  the  Scriptures  the  heretics  appeal  to 
tradition,  hut  thereby  they  show  themselves  very  incon¬ 
sistent.  For  how  can  they  appeal  to  tradition,  when  they 
themselves  confess  that  their  doctrine  is  of  their  own  in¬ 
vention?  If  they  had  the  true  tradition,  they  would 
necessarily  teach  one  and  the  same  doctrine.  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  however,  they  have  their  own  pet  theories,  no  two 
of  which  are  alike.  This  diversity  of  teaching  is  proof 
of  its  falsehood.  The  inconsistency,  the  hypocrisy  and 
arrogance  of  these  men  is  sufficient  to  condemn  them. 

In  the  following  paragraph  (m,  2,  2)  Irenaeus  refers  to 
the  insincerity  and  arrogance  of  the  heretics  again.  ^  ‘  But 
again,”  he  writes,  ^‘when  we  refer  them  to  that  tradition, 
which  originates  from  the  apostles  (and)  which  is  pre¬ 
served  by  means  of  the  successions  of  the  presbyters  in 
the  Churches,  they  object  to  tradition,  saying  that  they 
themselves  are  wiser  not  merely  than  the  presbyters,  but 
even  than  the  apostles,  because  they  have  discovered  the 
unadulterated  truth.  For  (they  maintain)  that  the  apos¬ 
tles  intermingled  the  things  of  the  law  with  the  words  of 
the  Saviour ;  and  that  not  the  apostles  alone,  but  even  the 
Lord  Himself,  spoke  as  at  one  time  from  the  Demiurge, 
at  another  from  the  intermediate  place,  and  yet  again 
from  the  Pleroma,  but  that  they  themselves  indubitably, 
unsulliedly,  and  purely,  have  knowledge  of  the  hidden 
mystery;  this  is  indeed,  to  blaspheme  their  Creator  after 
the  most  impudent  manner!  It  comes  to  this,  therefore, 
that  these  men  do  now  consent  neither  to  Scripture  nor 
to  tradition.”  The  Cnostics  in  their  boldness  set  their 
doctrine  above  the  Scripture  and  tradition,  believing 
themselves  wiser  than  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  and  even 
maintaining,  that  they  alone  had  the  true  teaching.  This 
conduct,  according  to  Irenaeus,  is  blasphemy  of  the  most 
impious  kind.  It  is,  ^Hhe  tradition  which  originates  from 
the  Apostles  and  which  is  preserved  by  means  of  the  sue- 


79 


cessions  of  the  presbyters  in  the  Churches,’^  which  one 
must  believe  and  hold.  This  apostolic  tradition  found  in 
the  Churches  is  the  one  true  rule  of  faith.  It  is  from  the 
bishops  of  these  apostolic  Churches,  therefore,  that  one 
must  get  this  doctrine  and  not  from  Valentinus,  or  Mar- 
cion,  or  Cerinthus,  or  Basilides  or  any  one  else. 

Nor  is  there  any  excuse,  according  to  Irenaeus,  for  go¬ 
ing  to  the  heretics,  for  he  says  CMt  is  within  the  power  of 
all,  therefore,  in  every  Church,  who  may  wish  to  see  the 
truth,  to  contemplate  clearly  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles 
manifested  throughout  the  whole  world;  and  we  are  in  a 
position  to  reckon  up  those  who  were  by  the  apostles  in¬ 
stituted  bishops  in  the  Churches,  and  (to  demonstrate) 
the  succession  of  these  men  to  our  own  times ;  those  who 
neither  taught  nor  knew  of  anything  like  what  these  (her¬ 
etics)  rave  about.  For  if  the  apostles  had  known  hidden 
mysteries,  which  they  were  in  the  habit  of  imparting  to 
‘the  perfect’  apart  and  privily  from  the  rest,  they  would 
have  delivered  them  especially  to  those  to  whom  they  were 
also  committing  the  Churches  themselves.  For  they  were 
desirous  that  these  men  should  be  very  perfect  and  blame¬ 
less  in  all  things,  whom  also  they  were  leaving  behind  as 
their  successors,  delivering  up  their  own  place  of  govern¬ 
ment  to  these  men;  which  men,  if  they  discharged  their 
functions  honestly,  would  be  a  great  boon  (to  the  Church), 
but  if  they  should  fall  away,  the  direst  calamity.”  (iii, 
3,  1).  The  great  test  of  doctrine  according  to  Irenaeus 
is  the  apostolic  succession.  The  apostles  gave  their  teach¬ 
ing  to  their  disciples,  these  in  turn  entrusted  it  to  their 
successors,  and  so  on.  The  ultimate  successors  of  the  apos¬ 
tles  are  the  bishops  of  the  apostolic  Churches.  To  these, 
then,  one  must  go  for  the  pure,  unalloyed  doctrine  of 
Christ. 

That  there  be  not  the  slightest  misgiving  about 
the  apostolic  succession,  Irenaeus  shows  the  order  of 
succession  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  most  prominent  of 
the  apostolic  Churches.  “Since,  however,  it  would  be 


80 


very  tedious  in  such  a  volume  as  this,  to  reckon  up  the 
successions  of  all  the  Churches,  we  do  put  to  confusion 
all  those  who,  in  whatever  manner,  whether  by  an  evil 
self-pleasing,  by  vainglory,  or  by  blindness  and  perverse 
opinion,  assemble  in  unauthorized  meetings ;  (we  do  this, 
I  say,)  by  indicating  that  tradition  derived  from  the  apos¬ 
tles,  of  the  very  great,  the  very  ancient  and  universally 
known  Church  founded  and  organized  at  Rome  by  the  two 
most  glorious  apostles,  Peter  and  Paul;  as  also  (by  point¬ 
ing  out)  the  faith  preached  to  men,  which  comes  down  to 
our  time  by  means  of  the  successions  of  the  bishops.  For 
it  is  a  matter  of  necessity  that  every  Church  should  agree 
with  this  Church  on  account  of  its  preeminent  authority, 
that  is,  the  faithful  everywhere,  in  as  much  as  the  apos¬ 
tolical  tradition  has  been  preserved  continuously  by  those 
(faithful  men)  who  exist  everywhere.  ’ 

‘‘The  blessed  apostles,  then,  having  founded  and  built 
up  the  Church,  committed  into  the  hands  of  Linus  the 
office  of  episcopate.  Of  this  Linus,  Paul  makes  mention 
in  the  Epistles  to  Timothy”  (iii,  3,  3).  After  enumerat¬ 
ing  all  the  bishops  of  Rome  from  St.  Peter  on  down  to 
Eleutherus,  he  concludes  with  this  striking  passage:  “In 


Cli.  Ill,  3,  '2.  Ad  haiic  enim  Ecolesiam  propter  potentiorem  princi- 
palitatem  necesse  est  omiiem  oonvenire  Ecclesiam,  hoc  est,  eos  qiii  sunt 
iindique  fideles,  in  qua  semper  ab  his,  qui  sunt  undique,  comservata  est  ea 
quae  est  ab  apostolis  traditio.”  There  are  various  interpretations  of  this 
passage.  The  above  translation  from  the  English  edition  of  the  Ante- 
Xicene  Fathers  is  not  so  good.  The  editor  in  a  footnote  remarks :  “  We 
are  far  from  sure  that  the  rendering  given  labove  is  correct,  But  we  have 
been  unable  to  think  of  anything  better.”  iHe  cites  the  following  transla¬ 
tion  from  Berington  and  Kirk,  Vol.  I,  p.  252:  “For  to  this  Church,  on 
account  of  more  potent  principality,  it  is  necessary  that  every  Church 
(that  is,  those  who  are  on  every  side  faithful)  resort;  in  which  Church 
ever,  hy  those  who  are  on  every  side,  has  been  preserved  that  tradition 
which  is  from  the  apostles.”  Bardenhewer-Shahan  gives  the  following 
translation :  “  With  this  Church,  because  of  its  higher  rank,  every  church 
must  agree,  i.  e.,  the  faithful  of  all  places,  in  which  (in  communion  with 
which)  the  apostolic  tradition  has  been  always  preserved  by  the  (faithful) 
of  lall  places.”  P.  121.  Cfr.  Batitfol,  Primitive  Catholicism,  p.  207  sq.; 
also  Funk,  Kirchengeschichtliche  Ahhandlungen,  Vol.  I,  p.  18  sq. 


81 


this  order,  and  by  this  succession,  the  ecclesiastical  tradi¬ 
tion  from  the  apostles,  and  the  preaching  of  the  truth 
have  come  down  to  ns.  And  this  is  most  abundant  proof 
that  there  is  one  and  the  same  vivifying  faith,  which  has 
been  preserved  in  the  Church  from  the  Apostles  until 
now,  and  handed  down  in  truth.’’  (iii,  3,  3). 

The  apostolic  succession  is  the  crushing  argument 
aganst  all  heretics.  Lest,  however,  they  dispute  this 
point  too,  Irenaeus  very  wisely  enumerates  the  bishops 
of  the  Roman  Church,  thus  removing  every  doubt  con¬ 
cerning  their  claim  to  the  true  doctrine.  The  bishops, 
as  the  legitimate  successors  of  the  Apostles,  are  the 
divinely  appointed  custodians  of  this  doctrine,  the  vehicle 
of  its  transmission,  and  consequently  also,  the  authorized 
teachers  and  interpreters  of  it.  Moreover,  he  says,  that 
the  teaching  of  the  other  apostolic  Churches  is  in  perfect 
agreement  with  that  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  so  that  the 
faithful,  scattered,  as  they  are,  all  over  the  world,  have 
one  and  the  same  rule  of  faith.  This  doctrine  one,  univer¬ 
sal,  apostolic,  is  alone  true.  The  apostolic  succession 
thus  puts  to  shame  and  confounds  ^‘all  those  who,  in  what¬ 
ever  manner,  whether  by  an  evil  self-pleasing,  by  vain¬ 
glory,  or  by  blindness  and  perverse  opinion,  assemble  in 
unauthorized  meeting.”  In  the  light  of  this  evidence  all 
exponents  of  private  interpretation  stand  condemned. 

To  weaken  the  force  of  this  testimony  the  assertion 
has  been  made  that  Irenaeus  is  inventing  something  new, 
that  he  is  introducing  the  apostolic  succession  as  a  decep¬ 
tive  means  and  as  a  last  resort  to  save  the  bishops  in 
their  struggle  with  heresy.  Such  an  invention,  however, 
would  be  impossible.  Irenaeus  cites  the  names  of  the 
bishops  of  Rome.  These  names  were  certainly  not  un¬ 
known  to  the  heretics,  and  if  he  were  making  false  state¬ 
ments,  they  would  have  quickly  brought  him  to  task  for 
it.  Instead  of  that  they  try  to  claim  the  apostolic  succes¬ 
sion  for  themselves.  Furthermore,  the  faithful  them¬ 
selves  would  have  resented  a  misrepresentation  of  facts, 


82 


especially  in  so  important  a  matter.  Yet  history  knows  of 
no  protest  or  resentment. 

Besides  Irenaeus  is  writing  against  novel  doctrines  and 
defending  the  old-time  honored  traditions  of  the  Apostles. 
Would  he  not  defeat  his  own  purpose  if  he  himself  sought 
to  introduce  new  doctrines  ?  The  heretics  could  object 
that  he  was  teaching  a  doctrine  different  from  that  of  the 
Apostles.  Irenaeus,  however,  is  far  from  introducing 
any  thing  new.  He  is  only  repeating  what  St.  Clement 
and  St.  Ignatius  and  St.  Polycarp  had  taught  before  him. 

The  testimony  of  Irenaeus  is  confirmed  by  that  of  Hege- 
sippus.  This  learned  Church  antiquarian  undertook  long 
journeys  (ca.  179  A.  D.),  in  order  to  assure  himself  of  the 
general  agreement  of  the  Christian  communities  in  their 
doctrinal  traditions.  He  visited  each  apostolic  Church 
and  inquired  for  the  unbroken  succession  of  its  bishops 
and  their  teaching.  The  result  of  his  investigation  he 
sums  up  in  the  following  noteworthy  testimony:  ‘‘When  I 
went  to  Rome,  I  drew  up  a  list  of  successions^  as  far  as 
Anicetus,  whose  deacon  Eleutherus  (then)  was.  In  every 
succession  and  in  every  city,  that  is  held,  which  is  preached 
by  the  law  and  the  prophets  and  the  Lord.  ^  Thus  Hege- 
sippus,  likewise,  regards  the  apostolic  succession  as  in¬ 
contestable  evidence  for  the  purity  and  genuineness  of 
the  apostolic  teaching. 

Aiadoxv^  eirot7](xdix7jv,  “  I  made  for  myself  a,  succession.”  The  best 
scholars  prefer  this  reading,  thus  Lipsius,  Lightfoot,  Renan,  Duchesne, 
Weizsaoher,  Salmon,  Gaspari,  Funk,  Turner,  Bardenhower,  Chapman.  Sa- 
ville,  Harnack,  McCiffert  and  Zahn  think  the  text  should  read:  diarpi^rjp 
eTTonjadfirjp,  ‘‘And  being  in  Rome  I  made  a  stay  there  till  Anicetus.”  Light- 
foot,  however,  has  shown  that  this  reading  is  untenable.  Cfr.  Apostolic 
Fathers,  Pt.  1,  Vol.  I,  p.  154.  See  also  Chapman,  art.  Hegesippus,  Gath. 
Encycl.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  104. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  IV,  22.  The  Nicene  and  Post-Nicene  Fathers, 
Second  Series,  Vol.  I,  Church  History  of  Eusehius,  contains  this  transla¬ 
tion:  “And  when  I  had  coime  to  Rome  I  remained  there  until  Anicetus, 
whose  deacon  was  Eleutherus.  And  Anicetus  was  succeeded  by  Soter,  and 
he  by  Eleutherus.  In  every  succession,  and  in  every  city  that  is  held 
which  is  preached  by  the  law  and  the  prophets  and  the  Lord.” 


83 


It  was  the  heretics,  who  corrupted  this  doctrine  by  in¬ 
troducing  their  own  private  opinions.  ‘  ‘  Each,  ^  ’  he  writes, 
‘‘introduced  privately  and  separately  his  own  peculiar 
opinion. And  again  in  another  place  he  says:  “The 
Church  up  to  that  time,^®  had  remained  a  pure  and  uncor¬ 
rupted  virgin,  since,  if  there  were  any  that  attempted  to 
corrupt  the  sound  norm  of  the  preaching  of  salvation, 
they  lay  until  then  concealed  in  obscure  darkness.  But 
when  the  sacred  college  of  apostles  had  suffered  death 
in  various  forms,  and  the  generation  of  those  that  had 
been  deemed  worthy  to  hear  the  inspired  wisdom  with 
their  own  ears  had  passed  away,  then  the  league  of  god¬ 
less  error  took  its  rise  as  a  result  of  the  folly  of  heretical 
teachers,  who,  because  none  of  the  apostles  was  still 
living,  attempted  henceforth,  with  bold  face,  to  proclaim, 
in  opposition  to  the  preaching  of  truth,  the  ‘knowledge 
which  is  falsely  so-called.^  Thus,  both  Irenaeus  and 
Hegesippus  hold  that  episcopal  office  rests  on  the  apos¬ 
tolic  succession,  and  on  the  historical  connection  of  the 
bishops  with  the  Apostles,  depends  the  certainty  of  their 
doctrine. 

“  Since  therefore  we  have  such  proofs,’^  v^rites 
Irenaeus  in  chapter  4,  book  iii,  “it  is  not  necessary  to 
seek  the  truth  among  others  which  it  is  easy  to  obtain 
from  the  Church;  since  the  apostles,  like  a  rich  man 
(depositing  his  money)  in  a  bank,  lodged  in  her  hands 
most  copiously  all  things  pertaining  to  the  truth;  so  that 
every  man,  whosoever  will,  can  draw  from  her  the  water 
of  life.  For  she  is  the  entrance  to  life;  all  others  are 
thieves  and  robbers.  On  this  account  are  we  bound  to 
avoid  them,  but  to  make  choice  of  the  things  pertaining  to 
the  Church  with  the  utmost  diligence,  and  to  lay  hold  of 
the  tradition  of  the  truth.  ^  ^  These  words  are  clear.  The 
Church  alone  has  received  the  sacred  teaching  of  Christ. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  IV,  212. 

Namely,  of  Trajian. 

Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccles.,  Ill,  3i2. 


84 


She  alone  is  the  entrance  to  life.  All  others  professing 
to  teach  the  truth  are  thieves  and  robbers. 

The  importance  of  tradition,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
insufficiency  of  Scripture,  as  a  rule  of  faith,  is  pointed 
out  in  the  same  chapter.  ^‘Suppose  there  arise  a  dispute 
relative  to  some  important  question  among  us,  should  we 
not  have  recourse  to  the  most  ancient  Churches  with 
which  the  apostles  held  constant  intercourse,  and  learn 
from  them  what  is  certain  and  clear  in  regard  to  the 
present  question?  For  how  should  it  be  if  the  apostles 
themselves  had  not  left  us  writings?  Would  it  not  be 
necessary,  (in  that  case)  to  follow  the  course  of  the  tradi¬ 
tion  which  they  handed  down  to  those  to  whom  they  did 
commit  the  Churches?’’  (iii,  4,  1). 

‘^To  which  course  many  nations  of  those  barbarians 
who  believe  in  Christ  do  assent,  having  salvation  written 
in  their  hearts  by  the  Spirit,  without  paper  or  ink,  and 
carefully  preserving  the  ancient  tradition,  believing  in 
one  God,  the  Creator  of  heaven  and  earth,  and  all  things 
therein,  by  means  of  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God;  who, 
because  of  His  surpassing  love  toward  His  creation,  con¬ 
descended  to  be  born  of  the  virgin.  He  Himself  uniting 
man  through  Himself  to  God,  and  having  suffered  under 
Pontius  Pilate,  and  rising  again,  and  having  been  re¬ 
ceived  up  in  splendor,  shall  come  in  glory,  the  Saviour 
of  those  who  are  saved,  and  the  Judge  of  those  who  are 
judged,  and  sending  into  eternal  fire  those  who  transform 
the  truth,  and  despise  His  Father  and  His  advent.  Those, 
who  in  the  absence  of  written  documents,  have  believed 
this  faith,  are  barbarians,  so  far  as  regards  our  lan¬ 
guage  ;  but  as  regards  doctrine,  manner,  and  tenor  of  life, 
they  are,  because  of  faith,  very  wise  indeed ;  and  they  do 
please  God,  ordering  their  conversation  in  all  righteous¬ 
ness,  chastity  and  wisdom.”  (ni,  4,  2). 

It  is  through  tradition  that  the  barbarian  peoples  have 
received  salvation.  So  deeply  is  the  true  faith  engraven 
in  their  hearts,  that  if  any  one  were  to  preach  to  them 


85 


^  ^  the  inventions  of  the  heretics,  speaking  to  them  in  their 
own  language,  they  would  at  once  stop  their  ears,  and  flee 
as  far  as  possible,  not  enduring  even  to  listen  to  the  blas¬ 
phemous  address.  Thus,  by  means  of  that  ancient  tradi¬ 
tion  of  the  apostles,  they  do  not  suffer  their  mind  to  con¬ 
ceive  anything  of  the  (doctrines  suggested  by  the)  por¬ 
tentous  language  of  these  teachers,  among  whom  neither 
Church  nor  doctrine  has  ever  been  established”  (iii,4,2). 
The  theory  that  Scripture  is  the  sole  rule  of  faith,  is  hard 
to  reconcile  with  these  words  of  Irenaeus. 

Foolish  indeed  would  the  faithful  be,  according  to  Ire¬ 
naeus,  were  they  to  reject  the  apostolic  tradition  for  the 
private  opinions  of  the  heretics,  ‘‘For,  prior  to  Valen¬ 
tinus,  those  who  follow  Valentinus  had  no  existence; 
nor  did  those  from  Marcion  exist  before  Marcion ;  nor,  in 
short,  had  any  of  those  malignant-minded  people,  whom  I 
have  above  enumerated,  any  being  previous  to  the  initia¬ 
tors  and  inventors  of  their  perversity”  (iii,  4,  3).  The 
recentness  of  the  false  teachers  is,  therefore,  sufficient  to 
condemn  them  and  their  doctrine.  The  Valentinians  can 
trace  their  doctrine  no  further  back  than  Valentinus,  the 
Marcionites  no  further  than  Marcion,  and  so  on. 

Furthermore,  since  the  heretics  have  not  the  apostolic 
tradition,  they  have  no  right  to  the  Scriptures.  The 
Church,  however,  having  the  apostolic  tradition  has  the 
right  to  the  Scriptures  and  also  the  right  to  interpret 
them.  Irenaeus  says  as  much  in  chapter  5,  bk.  iii.  ‘  ‘  Since, 
therefore,  the  tradition  from  the  apostles  does  thus  exist 
in  the  Church,  and  is  permanent  among  us,  let  us  revert 
to  the  Scriptural  proof  furnished  by  those  apostles  who 
did  also  write  the  gospel,  in  which  they  recorded  the  doc¬ 
trine  regarding  God,  pointing  out  that  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  truth,  and  that  no  lie  is  in  Him.”  .  .  . 
“Both  the  apostles  and  their  disciples  thus  taught  as  the 
Church  preaches.”  .  .  .  (iii,  12,  13). 

“Thus,  then,”  says  Irenaeus,  “have  all  these  men  been 
exposed,  who  bring  in  impious  doctrines  regarding  our 


86 


Maker  and  Framer,  who  also  formed  this  world  and  above 
whom  there  is  no  other  God;  and  those  have  been  over¬ 
thrown  by  their  ovm  arguments  who  teach  falsehoods 
regarding  the  substance  of  our  Lord,  and  the  dispensa¬ 
tion  which  He  fulfilled  for  the  sake  of  His  own  creature 
man.  But  (it  has,  on  the  other  hand,  been  shown),  that 
the  preaching  of  the  Church  is  everywhere  consistent,  and 
continues  in  an  even  course,  and  receives  testimony  from 
the  prophets,  the  apostles,  and  all  the  disciples — as  I  have 
proved — through  (those  in)  the  beginning,  the  middle, 
and  the  end,  and  through  the  entire  dispensation  of  God, 
and  that  well-grounded  system  which  tends  to  man^s  sal¬ 
vation,  namely,  our  faith;  which,  having  been  received 
from  the  Church,  we  do  preserve,  and  which  always,  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  renewing  its  youth,  as  if  it  were  some 
precious  deposit  in  an  excellent  vessel,  causes  the  vessel 
itself  containing  it  to  renew  its  youth  also.  For  this  gift 
of  God  has  been  entrusted  to  the  Church,  as  breath  was  to 
the  first  created  man,  for  this  purpose,  that  all  the  mem¬ 
bers  receiving  it  may  be  vivified;  and  the  (means  of)  com¬ 
munion  with  Christ  has  been  distributed  throughout  it, 
that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  earnest  of  incorruption,  the 
means  of  confirming  our  faith,  and  the  ladder  of  ascent 
to  God.  ‘For  in  the  Church,^  it  is  said,  ‘God  hath  set 
apostles,  prophets,  teachers,’  and  all  the  other  means 
through  which  the  Spirit  works ;  of  which  all  those  are  not 
partakers  who  do  not  join  themselves  to  the  Church,  but 
defraud  themselves  of  life  through  their  perverse  opin¬ 
ions  and  infamous  behavior.  For  where  the  Church  is, 
there  is  the  Spirit  of  God;  and  where  the  Spirit  of  God 
is,  there  is  the  Church,  and  every  kind  of  grace ;  but  the 
Spirit  is  truth.  Those,  therefore,  who  do  not  partake  of 
Him,  are  neither  nourished  into  life  from  the  mother’s 
breast,  nor  do  they  enjoy  that  most  limpid  fountain  which 
issues  from  the  body  of  Christ;  but  they  dig  for  them¬ 
selves  broken  cisterns  out  of  earthly  trenches,  and  drink 
putrid  water  out  of  the  mire,  fleeing  from  the  faith  of 


87 


the  Church  lest  they  he  convicted;  and  rejecting  the 
Spirit,  that  they  may  not  he  instructed.’’  (iii,  24,  1). 

The  teaching  of  the  Church,  according  to  Irenaeus,  is 
guarded  and  preserved  hy  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  is  the 
Spirit  of  truth.  ^^For  where  the  Church  is,  there  is  the 
Spirit  of  God.”  But  the  Spirit  of  truth,  the  Holy  Ghost, 
cannot  co-exist  with  falsehood.  And  because  the  heretics 
have  not  the  Holy  Spirit  with  them,  they  necessarily  wal¬ 
low  in  error.  ‘‘Alienated  thus  from  the  truth,”  he  con¬ 
tinues,  “they  do  deservedly  wallow  in  all  error,  tossed  to 
and  fro  hy  it,  thinking  differently  in  regard  to  the  same 
things  at  ditferent  times  and  never  attaining  to  a  well- 
grounded  knowledge,  being  more  anxious  to  he  sophists 
of  words  than  disciples  of  the  truth.  For  they  have  not 
been  founded  upon  the  one  rock,  hut  upon  the  sand,  which 
has  in  itself  a  multitude  of  stones.”  (iii,  24,  2).  Accord¬ 
ingly  the  teaching  of  the  Church  is  the  doctrine  of  life 
and  grace,  the  teaching  of  private  individuals  the  doctrine 
of  death  and  corruption.  In  other  words  the  Catholic 
rule  of  faith  leads  to  truth  and  unity  and  to  eternal  life ; 
all  others  rules  of  faith  to  error,  dissension  and  eternal 
death. 

It  is  in  the  apostolic  Church,  then,  that  one  must  seek 
the  truth.  She  is  the  one  rich  treasure-house,  she  is  the 
only  depository  of  divine  truth,  the  only  trustworthy 
guarantee  of  eternal  salvation.  She  is  the  earthly  para¬ 
dise  of  the  trees  of  which  every  one  may  eat.  Heresy,  on 
the  other  hand,  is  the  forbidden  tree  of  knowledge,  whose 
fruits  are  death-bringing.  And  those  who  would  tempt 
us  with  this  forbidden  fruit  are  like  the  serpent  beguiling 
Eve.  (iv,  Pref.  4).  They  ‘blaspheme’  and  ‘despise’  God. 
(ill,  24,  2).  Their  doctrines  are  putrid  water  full  of  cor¬ 
ruption  (ill,  24),  strange  fire  brought  to  the  altar  of  God 
(iv,  26).  Such  doctrines  must  be  rejected,  the  teachers 
of  these  doctrines  must  be  avoided.  “From  all  such  per¬ 
sons,  therefore,  it  behooves  us  to  keep  aloof,  but  to  adhere 
to  those  who,  as  I  have  already  observed,  do  hold  the  doc- 


88 


trine  of  the  apostles,  and  who,  together  with  the  order  of 
priesthood  (presbyterii  ordine)  display  sound  speech 
and  blameless  conduct  for  the  confirmation  and  correction 
of  others’^  (iv,  26,  4). 

The  one  true  doctrine  is  to  be  found  only  with  the 
bishops  of  the  Churches.  Hence  obedience  to  the  teach¬ 
ing  authority  of  the  Church,  that  is,  to  the  bishops  and 
presbyters  is  the  means  of  attaining  and  preserving  the 
true  apostolic  doctrine.  The  presbyters  are  faithful 
stewards,  ^‘good  and  wise  whom  the  Lord  sets  over  His 
household  to  give  them  their  meat  in  due  season’’  (iv,  26, 
5).  ‘‘Wherefore  it  is  incumbent  to  obey  the  presbyters 
who  are  in  the  Church, — those  who,  as  I  have  shown, 
possess  the  succession  from  the  apostles;  those  who,  to¬ 
gether  with  the  succession  of  the  episcopate,  have  re¬ 
ceived  the  certain  gift  of  truth,  according  to  the  good 
pleasure  of  the  Father.  But  (it  is  also  incumbent)  to 
hold  in  suspicion  others  who  depart  from  the  primitive 
succession,  and  assemble  themselves  together  in  any  place 
whatsoever,  (looking  upon  them)  either  as  heretics  of 
perverse  minds,  or  as  schismatics  puffed  up  and  self¬ 
pleasing,  or  again  as  hypocrites,  acting  thus  for  the  sake 
of  lucre  and  vainglory.  For  all  these  have  fallen  from, 
the  truth”  (iv,  26,  2).  Like  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  he 
looks  upon  the  bishops  as  the  custodians  and  interpreters 
of  the  apostolic  doctrine,  and  for  that  reason  insists  on 
obedience  to  them. 

It  is  quite  plain  from  these  passages  that  in  the  mind 
of  Irenaeus  the  Bible  is  insufficient  as  a  rule  of  faith,  and 
that  private  interpretation  is  a  very  insidious  and  blas¬ 
phemous  principle.  The  whole  third  book  of  Adversiis 
Haereses”  is  in  fact  a  vigorous  repudiation  of  this  prin¬ 
ciple.  And  while  the  Protestant  theory  is  condemned, 
the  Catholic  rule  of  faith  is  vindicated  and  defended  in 
almost  every  paragraph.  Scripture  and  tradition,  handed 
down  from  the  Apostles  through  the  succession  of  the 
bishops  and  taught  and  interpreted  by  the  bishops  is  the 


89 


one  true  rule  of  faith,  proclaimed  by  Irenaeus.  What 
else  is  this  but  the  same  rule  proclaimed  by  the  Catholic 
Church  ? 

The  unity  of  doctrine  found  in  all  the  Churches  is  fur¬ 
ther  guarantee  that  this  rule  of  faith  is  the  right  one. 
^‘The  Church,  though  dispersed  throughout  the  whole- 
world,  even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  has  received  from 
the  apostles  and  their  disciples  this  faith:  (She  be¬ 
lieves)  in  one  God,  the  Father  Almighty,  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth,  and  the  sea,  and  ail  things  that  are  in  them; 
and  in  one  Christ  Jesus,  the  Son  of  God,  who  became  in¬ 
carnate  for  our  salvation;  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
proclaimed  through  the  prophets  the  dispensations  of 
God,  and  the  advents,  and  the  birth  from  a  virgin,  and  the 
passion,  and  the  resurrection  from  the  dead,  and  the 
ascension  into  heaven  in  the  flesh  of  the  beloved  Christ 
Jesus,  our  Lord,  and  His  (future)  manifestation  from 
heaven  in  the  glory  of  the  Father  ‘  to  gather  all  things  in 
one,’  and  to  raise  up  anew  all  flesh  of  the  whole  human 
race,  in  order  that  to  Christ  Jesus,  our  Lord,  and  God,  and 
Savior,  and  King,  according  to  the  will  of  the  invisible 
Father,  ‘every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in  heaven,  and 
things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  and  that  every 
tongue  should  confess’  to  Him,  and  that  Lie  should  exe¬ 
cute  just  judgments  towards  all;  that  He  may  send 
‘spiritual  wickednesses,’  and  the  angels  who  transgressed 
and  became  apostates,  together  with  the  ungodly,  and 
unrighteous,  and  wicked,  and  profane  among  men,  into 
everlasting  fire;  but  may,  in  the  exercise  of  His  grace 
confer  immortality  on  the  righteous,  and  holy,  and  those 
who  have  kept  His  commandments,  and  have  persevered 
in  His  love,  some  from  the  beginning  (of  their  Christian 
course),  and  others  from  the  date  of  their  repentance, 
and  may  surround  them  with  everlasting  glory.  (i,  10). 

Teritullian  gives  a  similar  creed  in  chapter  13  of  De  Praescriptione 
Haereticorum.  “Now,  with  regard  to  this  rule  of  faith,”  he  writes,  “that 
we  may  from  this  point  acknowledge  what  it  is  which  we  defend — it  is, 


90 


Irenaeus  has  before  him  a  picture  of  the  universal 
Church,  spread  all  over  the  world,  handing  down  through 
the  unbroken  succession  of  the  bishops  the  apostolic  truth. 
The  fact,  that  one  and  the  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  the 
apostolic  Churches,  scattered  as  they  are  all  over  the 
world,  is  proof  that  the  doctrine  of  these  Churches  is  true, 
for  unity  is  the  sign  of  truth.  It  is  one  of  the  marks  of 
the  true  Church. 

Harnack,  commenting  on  this  passage,  writes  in  his 
History  of  Dogma,  Vol.  ii,  p.  26 :  ‘‘The  former  (Irenaeus) 
proclaimed  the  baptismal  confession,  definitely  interpreted 
and  expressed  in  an  Antignostic  form,  to  be  the  apostolic 
rule  of  truth  (regula  veritatis),  and  tried  to  prove  it  so. 
He  based  his  demonstration  on  the  theory  that  this  series 
of  doctrines  embodied  the  faith  of  the  Churches  founded 
by  the  Apostles,  and  that  these  communities  had  always 
preserved  the  apostolic  teaching  unchanged.  ’  ^ 

“Viewed  historically,  this  thesis,  which  preserved 
Christianity  from  complete  dissolution,  is  based  on  two 
unproved  assumptions  and  on  a  confusion  of  ideas.  It 
is  not  demonstrated  that  any  creed  emanated  from  the 
Apostles,  nor  that  the  Churches  they  founded  always 


you  must  know,  that  which  prescribes  the  belief  that  there  is  one  only  God, 
and  that  He  is  none  other  than  the  Creator  of  the  world  who  produced 
all  things  out  of  nothing  through  His  own  Word,  first  of  all  sent  forth; 
that  this  Word,  is  called  His  Son,  and,  under  the  name  of  God,  was  seen 
‘  in  diverse  manners  ’  by  the  patriarchs,  heard  at  all  times  in  the  prophets, 
at  lasit  brought  down  by  the  Spirit  and  Power  of  the  Father  into  the  Virgin 
Mary,  was  made  flesh  in  her  womb,  and,  being  born  of  her,  went  forth  as 
Jesus  Christ;  thenceforth  He  preached  the  new  Law  and  the  new  promise 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  worked  miracles;  having  been  crucified  He  rose 
again  the  third  day;  (then)  having  ascended  into  the  heavens.  He  sat  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father;  sent  instead  of  Himself  the  Power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  lead  such  as  believe  ;  will  come  with  glory  to  take  the  saints 
to  the  enjoyment  of  everlasting  life  and  of  heavenly  promises,  and  to  con¬ 
demn  the  wicked  to  everlasting  fire,  after  the  resurrection  of  both  these 
classes  shall  have  happened,  together  with  the  restoration  of  their  flesh. 
This  rule,  as  it  will  be  proved,  was  taught  by  Christ,  and  raises  amongst 
ourselves  no  other  questions  than  those  which  heresies  introduce,  and 
which  make  men  heretics.” 


91 


preserved  their  teaching  in  its  original  form;  the  creed 
itself,  moreover,  is  confused  with  its  interpretation. 
Finally,  the  existence  of  a  fides  catholica,  in  the  strict 
sense  of  the  word,  cannot  he  justly  inferred  from  the 
essential  agreement  found  in  the  doctrine  of  a  series  of 
communities.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  course  taken 
by  Irenaeus  was  the  only  one  capable  of  saving  what  yet 
remained  of  primitive  Christianity,  and  that  is  its  his¬ 
torical  justification.  A  fides  apostolica  had  to  be  set  up 
and  declared  identical  with  the  already  existing  fides 
catholica.  It  had  to  be  made  the  standard  for  judging 
all  particular  doctrinal  opinions,  that  it  might  be  deter¬ 
mined  whether  they  were  admissible  or  not.” 

To  say  that  Irenaeus  proclaimed  the  baptismal  confes¬ 
sion  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  tried  to  prove  it  so,  is  to 
misinterpret  him.  There  was  not  the  slightest  reason 
to  proclaim  a  rule  of  faith,  and  nothing  was  further  from 
the  mind  of  Irenaeus.  The  rule  of  faith  had  been  pro¬ 
claimed  long  before  by  the  Apostles.  And  this  apostolic 
rule,  coming  from  the  Apostles  themselves,  and  preserved 
and  handed  down  in  the  Churches  through  the  succession 
of  the  bishops,  Irenaeus  is  defending  against  the  Gnostic 
heretics.  In  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  these  men  he 
sums  up  the  principal  doctrines  contained  in  the  rule  of 
faith,  that  ^^rule  of  truth”  which  every  Christian  ^‘re¬ 
ceived  by  means  of  baptism.”  That  he  recognizes  this 
rule  of  truth  as  long  in  existence  and  firmly  established 
and  uniformly  preserved,  not  only  in  Gaul  but  throughout 
the  world,  is  plain  from  the  following  passage:  “As  I 
have  already  observed,  the  Church,  having  received  this 
preaching  and  this  faith,  although  scattered  throughout 
the  whole  world,  yet,  as  if  occupying  but  one  house,  care¬ 
fully  preserves  it.  She  also  believes  these  points  (of  doc¬ 
trine)  just  as  if  she  had  but  one  soul,  and  one  and  the  same 
heart,  and  she  proclaims  them,  and  teaches  them  and 
hands  them  down,  with  perfect  harmony,  as  if  she  pos¬ 
sessed  only  one  mouth.  For,  although  the  languages  of  the 


7 


92 


world  are  dissimilar,  yet  the  import  of  the  tradition  is  one 
and  the  same.  For  the  Churohes  which  have  been  planted  in 
Germany  do  not  believe  or  hand  down  anything  different, 
nor  do  those  in  Spain,  nor  those  in  Gaul,  nor  those  in  the 
East,  nor  those  in  Egypt,  nor  those  in  Libya,  nor  those 
which  have  been  established  in  the  central  regions  of  the 
world.  But  as  the  sun,  that  creature  of  God,  is  one  and 
the  same  throughout  the  whole  world,  so  also  the  preach¬ 
ing  of  the  truth  shineth  everywhere,  and  enlightens  all 
men  that  are  willing  to  come  to  a  knowledge  of  the  truth. 
Nor  will  any  one  of  the  rulers  in  the  Churches,  however, 
highly  gifted  he  may  be  in  point  of  eloquence,  teach 
doctrines  different  from  these  (for  no  one  is  greater  than 
the  Master) ;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  will  he  who  is 
deficient  in  power  of  expression  inflict  injury  on  the  tradi¬ 
tion.  For  the  faith  being  ever  one  and  the  same,  neither 
does  one  who  is  able  at  great  length  to  discourse  regard¬ 
ing  it,  make  any  addition  to  it,  nor  does  one  who  can  say 
but  little,  diminish  it’’  (i,  10,  2). 

It  is  not  true,  as  Harnack  maintains,  that  ‘Ghis  thesis” 
is  based  on  two  unproved  assumptions.  Irenaeus  very 
skillfully  proves  his  assertions.  It  is  Harnack  himself 
who  does  not  prove  his  assertions,  and  the  burden  of 
proof  rests  with  him.  One  may  justly  reply:  “Quod 
gratis  asseritur,  gratis  negatur.”  Irenaeus  does  not 
wish  to  prove,  nor  does  he  try  to  prove  that  the  creed, 
formulated,  as  he  gives  it,  emanated  from  the  Apostles. 
But  he  does  imply  that  the  doctrines,  enumerated  in  the 
creed  given,  were  received  from  the  Apostles  and  pre¬ 
served  in  the  Churches.  That  a  definite  teaching,  clearly 
defined  was  taught  by  the  Apostles  and  carefully  pre¬ 
served  by  the  Churches,  is  well  demonstrated  in  the  work 
Adversus  Haereses/^  If  the  Churches  did  not  have  a 
definite  doctrine,  then  how  account  for  the  vehement 
denunciation  of  heresy  in  Irenaeus,  and  in  Ignatius  and  in 
Polycarp  before  him?  It  was  just  this  departure  from 
the  apostolic  doctrine,  this  departure  from  a  clearly  de- 


93 


fined  teaching,  that  was  of  such  abhorrence  to  the  early 
successors  of  the  Apostles. 

Moreover,  what  stronger  proof  could  Irenaeus  furnish 
than  the  episcopal  succession  going  back  in  an  unbroken 
line  to  the  Apostles?  Surely  the  successors  of  the  Apos¬ 
tles,  the  men  left  in  charge  of  the  Churches  founded  by 
the  Apostles,  were  reliable  witnesses  to  the  apostolic 
teaching.  What  reason  has  one  to  doubt  their  words? 
How  could  they  be  wrong  when  they  all,  scattered  as  they 
were  all  over  the  world,  were  consistent  and  harmonious 
in  what  they  taught  of  Christ  ?  Why  is  this  agreement 
of  the  Churches,  throughout  the  world  not  a  sufficient 
proof  for  the  true  doctrine?  It  is  not  enough  for  Har- 
nack  to  brush  this  argument  aside  with  the  words,  ‘^Qui 
nimis  probat,  nihil  probat. 


History  of  Dogma,  Vol.  II,  p.  27,  note:  “Irenaeus  indeed  asserts  in 
several  passages  that  all  Cliiirches — those  in  Germany,  Iberia,  among  the 
Celts,  in  the  East,  in  Egypt,  in  Lybia  and  Italy;  see  I.  10.  2;  III,  3.  1; 
III,  4.  1  sq. — (possess  the  same  apostolic  kerygma;  but  “  qui  nimis  probat, 
nihil  prohat.”  Irenaeus  is  proving  nothing  here.  He  is  only  giving  facts. 
And  these  facts  are  so  well  kno^vn  that  he  takes  it  for  granted,  that  his 
opponents  will  not  even  dare  question  them. 


CHAPTER  YI. 


Tektullian, 

\ 

1.  As  a  Witness  to  the  Rule  of  Faith. 

Another  noteworthy  witness  to  the  rule  of  faith  is 
Tertullian.  Tertullian  was  horn  at  Carthage  about  the 
year  160  A.  His  father  was  a  centurion  in  the  ser¬ 
vice  of  the  proconsul  of  Africa.^  That  the  centurion’s 
gifted  son  received  a  good  education  is  evident  from  his 
writings.  Tertullian  seems  to  have  devoted  himself  to 
the  study  of  law,  and  very  probably  entered  upon  the 
career  of  an  advocate.  The  thought,  the  expression  and 
the  style  of  the  man  bespeak  the  trained  lawyer.  Whether 
Tertullian,  the  ecclesiastical  writer,  is  identical  with  the 
jurist  Tertullian,  whose  words  are  found  in  the  Pandects, 
is  not  certain. 

A  pagan  until  middle  age  Tertullian  shared  the  preju¬ 
dices,  and  indulged  in  the  shameful  practices  of  the 
pagans.  Captivated,  however,  by  the  courage  of  the 
martyrs,  he  became  a  Christian  in  the  year  195  or  196  A. 
D.  As  a  Christian  he  gave  himself  up  heart  and  soul  to 
the  religion  of  Christ.  Before  long  he  was  espousing  its 
cause  in  public.  According  to  St.  Jerome  he  was  or¬ 
dained  to  the  priesthood.®  This  office  he  discharged  most 
probably  at  Carthage. 

Toward  the  end  of  the  second  century  Montanism gained 
a  foothold  in  Africa.  Naturally  of  a  stern  disposition 
and  given  to  extremes,  Tertullian  favored  the  rigorism 
of  this  new  sect.  For  several  years  he  was  tending  to¬ 
ward  it.  The  open  break  with  the  Church  did  not  come, 

^  Bardenhewer,  Geschiclite  der  altkirch.  Liter.,  II.  Bd.,  p.  379. 

^  St.  Jerome,  De  Viris  Illustribus,  53. 

3  lUd. 


94 


95 


however,  until  the  year  213  A.  D.  or  thereabout.^  But 
even  the  rigorism  of  this  sect  was  not  severe  enough  for 
Tertullian,  so  he  founded  a  special  party  of  his  own 
among  the  Montanists.  Of  his  later  life  nothing  is  known 
with  certainty.  According  to  St.  Jerome  he  lived  to  an 
advanced  age.®  On  conjecture  solely  critics  place  his 
death  in  the  year  240. 

As  a  Catholic  Tertullian  did  much  in  defense  of  the 
Church.  He  wrote  against  heathenism,  Judaism  and 
heresy.  His  keen  logic,  his  biting  sarcasm,  his  burning 
eloquence  and  his  original,  sententious  style  made  him  a 
powerful  and  formidable  adversary.  In  the  heat  of  pas¬ 
sion,  however,  he  often  proved  too  much,  and  thus  instead 
of  convincing  and  instructing,  crushed  and  embittered  an 
opponent.  Having  become  a  Montanist,  he  turned  on 
the  Church  and  attacked  her  with  the  same  vehemence 
he  had  formerly  used  to  defend  her. 

% 

2.  De  Praescriptione  Haereticorum. 

Tertullian  was  the  most  prolific  of  the  Latin  writers. 
He  was  for  the  Latins,  what  Origen  was  for  the  G-reeks. 
His  works  extend  over  almost  every  department  of  religi¬ 
ous  life.  His  master-piece,  however,  is  the  one  entitled 
“He  Praescriptione  Haereticorum.”  It  is  an  attack  on 
heresy,  and  a  refutation  of  the  arguments  advanced  by 
heretics  in  defense  of  their  opinions.  In  it  he  uses  his 
best  style  and  strongest  arguments  to  portray  the  true 
rule  of  faith.  He  pursues  his  opponents  until  he  has  cut 
otf  from  them  every  loophole  of  escape.  Never  is  he  so 
much  the  advocate  of  the  Church,  as  in  this  writing.  It 
is  this  work,  then,  that  will  be  considered  and  examined 
in  the  following  chapter. 


^  Bardenhewer,  op.  cit.,  II.  Bd.,  p.  334. 
®  Op.  cit.,  53. 


96 


3.  The  Rule  of  Faith  according  to  T ertullian. 

Heresy  is  severly  censured  by  Tertullian.  He  com¬ 
pares  it  to  a  deadly  fever,  which  consumes  the  life  of  the 
soul  and  ultimately  leads  to  its  destruction.  Nor  is  any 
one  so  strong  in  the  faith,  that  he  is  immune  from  this 
fatal  disease.  Just  as  a  strong,  healthy  person  can  con¬ 
tract  fever  as  well  as  the  weak  and  infirm,  so  also  can 
those  strong  in  the  faith  succumb  to  the  fever  of  heresy. 
‘  ‘  But  what  if  a  bishop,  if  a  deacon,  if  a  widow,  if  a  virgin, 
if  a  doctor,  if  even  a  martyr,  have  fallen  from  the  rule  (of 
faith),  will  heresies  on  that  account  appear  to  possess 
the  truth  ?  Do  we  prove  the  faith  by  the  persons,  or  the 
persons  by  the  faith? (ch.  3). 

There  is  absolutely  no  excuse,  however,  for  those  who 
fall  away.  Our  Lord  and  the  Apostles  have  warned  us 
sufficiently  against  false  doctrines.  ^‘The  Lord  teaches 
us  that  many  Havening  wolves  shall  come  in  sheep’s 
clothing.’  Now  what  are  these  sheep’s  clothings  but  the 
external  surface  of  the  Christian  profession?  Who  are 
the  ravening  wolves  but  those  deceitful  senses  and  spirits 
which  are  lurking  within  to  waste  the  flock  of  Christ  ? 
Who  are  the  false  prophets  but  deceptive  predictors  of 
the  future?  Who  are  the  false  apostles  but  the  preach¬ 
ers  of  a  spurious  gospel?  Who  also  are  the  Antichrists, 
both  now  and  evermore,  but  the  men  who  rebel  against 
Christ?  Heresies  at  the  present  time  will  no  less  rend 
the  Church  by  their  perversion  of  doctrine,  than  will 
Antichrist  persecute  her  at  that  day  by  the  cruelty  of 
his  attacks,  except  that  persecution  makes  even  martyrs, 
(but)  heresy  only  apostates”  (ch.  4).  These  words  re¬ 
veal  a  deep-seated  hatred  of  false  doctrines.  Like  St. 
Ignatius  and  St.  Polycarp,  Tertullian  speaks  of  heretics 
in  scathing  terms.  They  are  ‘ravening  wolves,’  Anti¬ 
christs,  bent  on  the  destruction  of  Christ’s  flock. 

Keferring  to  the  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Galatians 
and  to  Titus,  where  heresy  is  condemned  by  the  Apostle, 


t 


97 


he  says  in  chapter  6:  ‘‘For  this  reason  it  is  that  he®  calls 
the  heretic  self -condemned,  because  he  has  himself  chosen 
that  for  which  he  is  condemned.  We,  however,  are  not 
permitted  to  cherish  any  object  after  our  owm  will,  nor 
yet  to  make  choice  of  that  which  another  has  introduced 
of  his  private  fancy.  In  the  Lord’s  apostles  we  possess 
our  authority;  for  even  they  did  not  of  themselves  choose 
to  introduce  anything,  but  faithfully  delivered  to  the 
nations  (of  mankind)  the  doctrine  which  they  had  re¬ 
ceived  from  Christ.  If  therefore  even  ‘an  Angel  from 
heaven  should  preach  any  other  gospel’  (than  theirs),  he 
would  be  called  accursed  by  us.”  St.  Paul,  like  our  Lord 
Himself,  also  condemned  private  views  and  interpreta¬ 
tions  in  religious  matters.  The  Christian  must  not  be 
guided  by  the  private  fancies  and  opinions  of  any  and 
every  teacher.  The  Christian’s  norm  is  in  the  Apostles, 
and  consequently  also  in  their  successors.  It  is  to  them, 
then,  that  one  must  go  for  the  one  true  rule  of  faith. 

Thus  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  private  interpreta- 

•  _ 

tion  of  Scripture,  finds  ho  favor  in  this  work  of  Tertullian. 
Like  the  heretics  of  old,  the  Protestants  maintain  that 
they  “treat  of  the  Scriptures  and  recommend  (their  opin¬ 
ions)  out  of  the  Scriptures.”  Tertullian  anticipates  this 
objection.  “To  be  sure  they  do,”  he  answers.  “Prom 
what  other  source  could  they  derive  arguments  concern¬ 
ing  the  things  of  the.  faith,  except  from  the  records  of  the 
faith?”  (ch.  14).  “We  are,  therefore,  come  to  (the  gist 
of)  our  position,”  he  says,  “for  at  this  point  we  were 
aiming,  and  for  this  we  were  preparing  in  the  preamble 
of  our  address  (which  we  have  just  completed) — so  that 
we  may  now  join  issue  on  the  contention  to  which  our 
adversaries  challenge  us.  They  put  forward  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  by  this  insolence  of  theirs  they  at  once  influence 
some.  In  the  encounter  itself,  however,  they  weary  the 
strong,  they  catch  the  weak,  and  dismiss  waverers  with  a 


®St.  Paul. 


98 


doubt.  Accordingly,  we  oppose  to  them  this  step  abov’e 
all  others,  of  not  admitting  them  to  any  discussion  of  the 
Scriptures.’’ 

‘‘If  in  these  lie  their  resources,  before  they  can  use 
them,  it  ought  to  be  clearly  seen  to  whom  belongs  the 
possession  of  the  Scriptures,  that  none  may  be  admit  led 
to  the  use  thereof  who  has  no  title  at  all  to  the  privilege” 
(ch.  15).  Here  Tertullian  begins  his  celebrated  argument 
from  prescription,  prescription  was  a  procedure  of 
Roman  law.  It  meant  a  claim  founded  on  the  antecedent 
possession  of  a  thing  and  brought  forth  by  the  accused. 
This  claim  cut  short  the  question  and  deprived  the  oppo¬ 
nent  of  a  hearing.  The  writer  very  aptly  applies  this 
method  of  procedure  in  his  refutation  of  the  heretics.  The 
latter  appealed  to  Scripture  to  bolster  up  their  claims. 
Tertullian  argues,  that  they  have  absolutely  no  right  to 
appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  since  the  Scriptures  do  not  be¬ 
long  to  them.  He  thereby  cuts  the  ground  from  under 
their  feet,  and  with  one  stroke  destroys  their  arguments 
from  the  Bible.  ' 

We  have,  he  states  in  chapter  16,  the  apostolic  sanction 
for  this  exclusion  of  heretics  from  the  use  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures.  For  the  Apostle  “forbids  us  to  enter  on  ‘ques¬ 
tions,’  or  to  lend  our  ears  to  new-fangled  statements,  or 
to  consort  with  a  heretic  ‘after  the  first  and  second  admo¬ 
nition,’  not,  (be  it  observed),  after  discussion.  Discus¬ 
sion  he  has  inhibited  in  this  way,  by  designating  admo¬ 
nition  as  the  purpose  of  dealing  with  a  heretic.”  .  .  . 

Moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  argue  with  the  heretics 
from  the  Scriptures,  because  they  pervert  the  holy  Book. 
“Now  this  heresy  of  yours  does  not  receive  certain  Scrip¬ 
tures  ;  and  whichever  of  them  it  does  receive,  it  perverts 
by  means  of  additions  and  diminutions,  for  the  accom¬ 
plishment  of  its  own  purpose ;  and  such  as  it  does  receive, 
it  receives  not  in  their  entirety;  but  even  when  it  does  re¬ 
ceive  any  up  to  a  certain  point  as  entire,  it  nevertheless 
perverts  even  these  by  the  contrivance  of  diverse  inter- 


99 


pretations.  Truth  is  just  as  much  opposed  by  an  adul¬ 
teration  of  its  meaning  as  it  is  by  a  corruption  of  its  text. 
Their  vain  presumptions  must  needs  refuse  to  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  (writings)  whereby  they  are  refuted.  They  rely 
on  those  which  they  have  falsely  put  together,  and  which 
they  have  selected,  because  of  their  ambiguity.  Though 
most  skilled  in  the  Scriptures,  you  will  make  no  progress, 
when  everything  which  you  maintain  is  denied  on  the 
other  side,  and  whatever  you  deny  is  (by  them)  main¬ 
tained.  As  for  yourself,  indeed  you  will  lose  nothing  but 
your  breath,  and  gain  nothing  but  vexation  from  their 
blasphemy^’  (ch.  17).  It  is  useless,  therefore,  to  dispute 
with  such  men  from  the  Scriptures.  One  only  wastes 
time  and  loses  patience. 

In  fact  a  discussion  of  the  Scriptures  is  even  a  danger 
for  the  weak  in  faith.  ^‘But  with  respect  to  the  man  for 
whose  sake  you  enter  on  the  discussion  of  the  Scriptures, 
with  the  view  of  strengthening  him  when  afflicted  with 
doubts,  (let  me  ask)  will  it  be  to  the  truth,  or  rather  to 
heretical  opinions  that  he  will  lean?  Influenced  by  the 
very  fact  that  he  sees  you  have  made  no  progress,  whilst 
the  other  side  is  on  an  equal  footing  (with  yourself)  in 
denying  and  in  defence,  or  at  any  rate  on  a  like  standing 
he  will  go  away  confirmed  in  his  uncertainty  by  the  dis¬ 
cussion,  not  knowing  which  side  to  adjudge  heretical. 
For,  no  doubt,  they  too  are  able  to  retort  these  things  on 
us.  It  is  indeed  a  necessary  consequence  that  they  should 
go  so  far  as  to  say  that  adulterations  of  the  Scriptures, 
and  false  expositions  thereof,  are  rather  introduced  by 
ourselves,  inasmuch  as  they,  no  less  than  we,  maintain 
that  truth  is  on  their  side’^  (ch.  18). 

‘‘Our  appeal,  therefore,’^  Tertullian  continues  in  chap¬ 
ter  19,  “must  not  be  made  to  the  Scriptures;  nor  must 
controversy  be  admitted  on  points  in  which  victory  will 
either  be  impossible  or  uncertain,  or  not  certain  enough.’^ 
The  point  to  be  ascertained  is,  whose  are  the  Scriptures  ? 
“But  even  if  a  discussion  from  the  Scriptures  should  not 


100 


turn  out  in  such  a  way  as  to  place  both  sides  on  a  par, 
(yet)  the  natural  order  of  things  would  require  that  this 
point  should  be  first  proposed,  which  is  now  the  only  one 
which  we  must  discuss:  ^With  whom  lies  that  very  faith 
to  which  the  Scriptures  belong?  From  what  and  through 
whom,  and  when,  and  to  whom,  has  been  handed  down 
that  rule,  by  which  men  become  Christians  ?  ’  For  where- 
ever  it  shall  be  manifest  that  the  true  Christian  rule  and 
faith  shall  be,  there  will  likewise  be  the  true  Scriptures 
and  expositions  thereof,  and  all  the  Christian  traditions’^ 
(ch.  19). 

Then  in  the  following  chapters  he  goes  on  to  show  who 
has  this  true  rule  of  faith,  and  consequently  who  has  the 
exclusive  right  to  the  Scriptures.  ^  ‘  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord 
.  .  .  didst  whilst  he  lived  on  earth.  Himself  declare  what 
He  was,  what  He  had  been,  what  the  Father’s  will  was 
which  He  was  administering,  what  the  duty  of  man  was 
which  he  was  prescribing;  (and  this  declaration  He  made) 
either  openly  to  the  people,  or  privately  to  His  disciples, 
of  whom  He  had  chosen  the  twelve  chief  ones  to  be  at  His 
side,  and  whom  he  destined  to  be  the  teachers  of  the 
nations.  Accordingly,  after  one  of  these  had  been  struck 
off.  He  commanded  the  eleven  others,  on  His  departure  to 
the  Father,  to  ‘go  and  teach  all  nations,  who  were  to  be 
baptized  into  the  Father,  and  into  the  Son,  and  into  the 
Holy  Ghost.’  Immediately,  therefore,  so  did  the  apostles 
whom  this  designation  indicates  as  ‘the  sent.’  Having, 
on  the  authority  of  a  prophecy,  which  occurs  in  a  psalm 
of  David,  chosen  Matthias  by  lot  as  the  twelfth,  into  the 
place  of  Judas,  they  obtained  the  promised  power  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  for  the  gift  of  miracles  and  of  utterance ;  and 
after  first  bearing  witness  to  the  faith  in  Jesus  Christ 
throughout  Judaea,  and  founding  churches  (there),  they 
next  went  forth  into  the  world  and  preached  the  same 
doctrine  of  the  same  faith  to  the  nations.  They  then  in 
like  manner  founded  churches  in  every  city,  from  which 
all  the  other  churches,  one  after  another,  derived  the  tra- 


101 


dition  of  the  faith,  and  the  seeds  of  doctrine,  and  are 
every  day  deriving  them,  that  they  may  become  churches. 
Indeed,  it  is  on  this  account  only  that  they  will  be  able 
to  deem  themselves  apostolic,  as  being  the  offspring  of 
apostolic  churches.  Every  sort  of  thing  must  necessarily 
revert  to  its  original  for  its  classification.  Therefore,  the 
churches,  although  they  are  so  many  and  so  great,  com¬ 
prise  but  the  one  primitive  church,  (founded)  by  the 
apostles,  from  which  they  all  ( spring) .  In  this  way  all  are 
primitive,  and  all  are  apostolic,  whilst  they  are  all  proved 
to  be  one,  in  (unbroken)  unity,  by  their  peaceful  com¬ 
munion,  and  title  of  brotherhood,  and  bond  of  hospitality, 
—privileges  which  no  other  rule  directs  than  the  one  tra¬ 
dition  of  the  selfsame  mystery^’  (ch.  20). 

It  is  this  Church,  then,  come  down  from  the  Apostles, 
that,  according  to  Tertullian,  has  inherited  the  Scriptures 
and  has  the  exclusive  right  to  interpret  them.  The  Apos¬ 
tles,  he  says,  ^‘founded  churches  in  every  city.”  From 
these  churches  ‘  ‘  all  the  other  churches,  one  after  another, 
derived  the  tradition  of  the  faith,  and  the  seeds  of  doc¬ 
trine,  and  are  every  day  deriving  them.”  Hence  these 
churches,  ‘Heing  the  offspring  of  apostohc  churches” 
and  having  received  the  same  tradition  of  faith,  in  other 
words,  the  same  rule  of  faith,  are  in  every  sense  of  the 
word  apostolic.  And  many  and  great  as  they  are,  they  all 
‘‘comprise  but  the  one  primitive  church,  (founded  by  the 
Apostles),”  because  they  all  have  the  one  apostolic  tradi¬ 
tion. 

The  doctrine  of  the  apostolic  Church,  therefore,  must 
be  the  norm  of  truth.  All  doctrine  which  agrees  with 
this  teaching,  is  true ;  that  doctrine  which  does  not  is  false. 
“From  this,  therefore,”  he  says,  “do  we  draw  up  our 
rule.  Since  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  sent  the  apostles  to 
preach,  (our  rule  is)  that  no  others  ought  to  be  received 
as  preachers  than  those  whom  Christ  appointed;  for  ‘no 
man  knoweth  the  Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomso¬ 
ever  the  Son  will  reveal  Him.^  Nor  does  the  Son  seem  to 


V 


102 


have  revealed  Him  to  any  other  than  the  apostles,  whom 
He  sent  forth  to  preach — that,  of  course,  which  He  re¬ 
vealed  to  them.  Now,  what  that  was  which  they  preached, 
in  other  words^ — what  it  was  which  Christ  revealed  to 
them — can,  as  I  must  here  likewise  prescribe,  properly  be 
proved  in  no  other  way  than  by  those  very  churches  which 
the  apostles  founded  in  person,  by  declaring  the  gospel 
to  them  directly  themselves,  both  viva  voce,  as  the  phrase 
is,  and  subsequently  by  their  epistles.  If,  then,  these 
things  are  so,  it  is  in  the  same  degree  manifest  that  all 
doctrine  which  agrees  with  the  apostolic  churches — those 
moulds  and  original  sources  of  the  faith  must  be  reckoned 
for  truth,  as  undoubtedly  containing  that  which  the  (said) 
churches  received  from  the  apostles,  the  apostles  from 
Christ,  Christ  from  God.  Whereas  all  doctrine  must  be 
prejudged  as  false  which  savours  of  contrariety  to  the 
truth  of  the  churches  and  apostles  of  Christ  and  God.  It 
remains,  then,  that  we  demonstrate  whether  this  doctrine 
of  ours,  of  which  we  have  now  given  the  rule,  has  its 
origin  in  the  tradition  of  the  apostles,  and  whether  all 
other  doctrines  do  not  ipso  facto  proceed  from  falsehood. 
We  hold  communion  with  the  apostolic  churches  because 
our  doctrine  is  in  no  respect  different  from  theirs.  This 
is  our  witness  of  truth (ch.  21). 

These  words  are  quite  clear.  The  writer  says,  there  is 
only  one  way  of  ascertaining  the  teaching  of  Christ  and 
the  Apostles,  only  one  means  of  obtaining  the  true  rule  of 
faith,  and  that  is,  by  having  recourse  to  ‘Ghe  very 
churches  which  the  apostles  founded  in  person,  by  declar¬ 
ing  the  gospel  to  them  directly  themselves,  both  viva  voce, 
as  the  phrase  is,  and  subsequently  by  their  epistles.^’ 
Only  that  ‘^doctrine  which  agrees  with  the  apostolic 
churches — those  moulds  and  original  sources  of  the  faith 
must  be  reckoned  for  truth, that  is,  for  the  doctrine 
handed  down  by  the  Apostles  as  the  teaching  of  Christ. 
On  the  other  hand  all  teaching  which  savours  of  con¬ 
trariety  to  the  truth  of  the  churches  and  apostles  of 


103 


Christ  and  God/’  is  false,  and  must,  therefore,  be  re¬ 
jected.  The  apostolic  churches,  then,  are  our  witness  of 
the  truth.  They  are  our  pledge,  our  security  and  our 
proof  for  the  apostolic  doctrine. 

Tertullian  leaves  the  heretics  not  a  single  loophole  for 
escape.  He  immediately  takes  up  the  objections  on  which 
the  false  teachers  seek  to  establish  their  theories.  ‘‘They 
usually  tell  us,”  he  says,  “that  the  apostles  did  not  know 
all  things.  .  .  .  ”  Thus,  they  expose  ‘  ‘  Christ  to  blame  for 
having  sent  forth  apostles  who  had  either  too  much  ignor¬ 
ance  or  too  little  simplicity.”  “What  man,  then,”  he 
writes,  “of  sound  mind  can  possibly  suppose  that  they 
were  ignorant  of  anything,  whom  the  Lord  ordained  to  be 
masters  (or  teachers),  keeping  them,  as  He  did,  insepar¬ 
able  (from  Himself)  in  their  attendance,  in  their  disciple- 
ship,  in  their  society,  to  whom,  ‘when  they  were  alone, 
He  used  to  expound’  all  things  which  were  obscure,  telling 
them  that  ‘to  them  it  was  given  to  know  those  mysteries,’ 
which  it  was  not  permitted  the  people  to  understand!” 
How  could  ‘knowledge’  be  ‘withheld’  from  “Peter,  who 
is  called  ‘the  rock  on  which  the  church  should  be  built,’ 
who  also  obtained  ‘the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,’ 
with  the  power  of  ‘loosing  and  binding  in  heaven  and  on 
earth?’  Was  anything,  again,  concealed  from  John,  the 
Lord’s  most  beloved  disciple,  who  used  to  lean  on  His 
breast  to  whom  alone  the  Lord  pointed  Judas  out  as  the 
traitor,  whom  He  commended  to  Mary  as  a  son  in  His 
own  stead!”  (ch.  22). 

Moreover,  Tertullian  says,  the  Apostles  had  the  assist¬ 
ance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  “No  doubt,”  he  continues  in 
the  same  chapter,  “He  had  once  said,  ‘I  have  yet  many 
things  to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  hear  them  now;’ 
but  even  then  He  added,  ‘When  He,  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
shall  come.  He  will  lead  you  into  all  truth.’  He  (thus) 
shows  that  there  was  nothing  of  which  they  were  ignorant, 
to  whom  He  had  promised  the  future  attainment  of  all 
truth  by  help  of  the  Spirit  of  truth.  And  assuredly  He 


104 


fulfilled  His  promise,  since  it  is  proved  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  that  the  Holy  Ghost  did  come  down.  Now  they, 
who  reject  that  Scripture,  can  neither  belong  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  seeing  that  they  cannot  acknowledge  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  has  been  sent  as  yet  to  the  disciples,  nor  can  they 
presume  to  claim  to  he  a  church  themselves  who  positively 
have  no  means  of  proving  when,  and  with  what  swaddling- 
clothes  this  body  was  established”  (ch.  22). 

In  refuting  another  argument  of  the  heretics,  Tertul- 
lian  anticipates  a  similar  objection  common  to  many 
Protestants  of  modern  times.  Some  say,  he  writes,  that 
^  while  the  apostles  perhaps  proclaimed  the  entire  rule  of 
faith  simply  and  fully,’  ‘Hhe  churches  through  their  own 
fault,  set  it  forth  otherwise  than  the  apostles  had  done. 
All  these  suggestions  of  distrust,”  says  Tertullian,  ‘‘you 
may  find  put  forward  by  the  heretics.  They  bear  in  mind 
how  the  churches  were  rebuked  by  the  apostle.  ”  .  .  .  How¬ 
ever,  Tertullian  continues,  “when  they  raise  the  objection 
that  the  churches  were  rebuked,  let  them  suppose  that 
they  were  also  corrected;  let  them  also  remember  those 
(churches),  concerning  whose  faith  and  knowledge  and 
conversation  the  apostle  ‘rejoices  and  gives  thanks  to 
God,’  which  nevertheless,  even  at  this  day,  unite  with 
those  which  were  rebuked  in  the  privileges  of  one  and  the 
same  institution”  (ch.  27). 

The  unity  and  conformity  everywhere  apparent  is  fur¬ 
ther  proof  that  the  apostolic  doctrine  was  handed  down 
pure  and  unalloyed  by  the  churches.  Unity  argues  for 
truth,  error  begets  division.  In  the  Church  we  have  unity, 
therefore  also  truth ;  the  heretics  are  divided  into  numer¬ 
ous  sects,  an  indication  that  they  are  in  error.  Tertullian 
develops  this  argument  in  chapter  28.  “Grant,  then,” 
he  writes,  “that  all  have  erred;  that  the  apostle  was  mis¬ 
taken  in  giving  his  testimony;  that  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
no  such  respect  to  any  one  (church)  as  to  lead  it  into 
truth,  although  sent  with  this  view  by  Christ,  and  for  this 
asked  of  the  Father  that  He  might  be  the  teacher  of  truth ; 


105 


grant,  also,  that  He,  the  Steward  of  God,  the  Vicar  of 
Christ,  neglected  his  office,  permitting  the  churches  for  a 
time  to  understand  differently,  (and)  to  believe  differ¬ 
ently,  what  He  himself  was  preaching  by  the  apostles — 
is  it  likely  that  so  many  churches,  and  they  so  great, 
should  have  gone  astray  into  one  and  the  same  faith? 
No  casualty  distributed  among  many  men  issues  in  one 
and  the  same  result.  Error  of  doctrine  in  the  churches 
must  necessarily  have  produced  various  issues.  When, 
however,  that  which  is  deposited  among  many  is  found 
to'be  one  and  the  same,  it  is  not  the  result  of  error,  but  of 
tradition.  Can  anyone,  then,  be  reckless  enough  to  say 
that  they  were  in  error  who  handed  on  the  tradition?’^ 
The  priority  of  the  Church’s  doctrine  is  another  mark 
of  its  truth ;  while  the  recentness  of  heresy  is  its  condem¬ 
nation.  Truth,”  says  Tertullian,  precedes  its  copy, 
the  likeness  succeeds  the  reality.  Absurd  enough,  how¬ 
ever,  is  it,  that  heresy  should  be  deemed  to  have  preceded 
its  own  prior  doctrine,  even  on  this  account,  because  it  is 
that  (doctrine)  itself  which  foretold  that  there  should  be 
heresies  against  which  men  would  have  to  guard !  To  a 
church  which  possessed  this  doctrine,  it  was  written — yea, 
the  doctrine  itself  writes  to  its  own  church — though  an 
Angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  gospel,  than  that 
which  we  have  preached,  let  him  be  accursed”  (ch.  29).'^ 
Where  was  Marcion,  then/^  Tertullian  continues, 
‘Ghat  shipmaster  of  Pontus,  the  zealous  student  of  Stoi¬ 
cism?  Where  was  Valentinus  then,  the  disciple  of  Pla¬ 
tonism?  For  it  is  evident  that  those  men  lived  not  so 
long  ago — in  the  reign  of  Antoninus,  for  the  most  part — 
and  that  they  at  first  were  believers  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  in  the  church  of  Rome  under  the  episco¬ 
pate  of  the  blessed  Eleutherus,  until  on  account  of  their 
ever  restless  curiosity,  with  which  they  even  infected  the 

’  “  Ad  ejus  doctrinae  Ecclesiam  scriptiim  est,  imo  ipsa  doctrina  ad  Ec- 
clesiam  suam  scribit:  Etsi  Angelus  de  coelo'  aliter  evangelizaverit  citra 
quam  nos,  anathema  sit  {Gal.,  I,  8).” 


106 


brethren,  they  were  more  than  once  expelled’’  (ch.  30). 

The  apostolic  succession,  however,  is  Tertullian’s  crush¬ 
ing  argTiment  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith. 
“But,”  he  writes,  “if  there  be  any  (heresies)  which  are 
bold  enough  to  plant  themselves  in  the  midst  of  the  apos¬ 
tolic  age,  that  they  may  thereby  seem  to  have  been  handed 
down  by  the  apostles,  because  they  existed  in  the  time 
of  the  apostles,  we  can  say :  Let  them  produce  the  original 
records  of  their  churches,  let  them  unfold  the  roll  of  their 
bishops,  running  down  in  due  succession  from  the  begin¬ 
ning  in  such  a  manner  that  (that  first  bishop  of  theirs) 
bishop  shall  be  able  to  show  for  his  ordainer  and  prede¬ 
cessor  some  one  of  the  apostles  or  of  apostolic  men — a 
man,  moreover,  who  continued  stedfast  with  the  apostles. 
For  this  is  the  manner  in  which  the  apostolic  churches 
transmit  their  registers :  as  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  which 
records  that  Poly  carp  was  placed  therein  by  John ;  as  also 
the  Church  of  Rome,  which  makes  Clement  to  have  been 
ordained  by  Peter.  In  exactly  the  same  way  the  other 
churches  likewise  exhibit  (their  several  worthies),  whom, 
as  having  been  appointed  to  their  episcopal  places  by 
apostles,  they  regard  as  transmitters  of  the  apostolic 
seed.  Let  the  heretics  contrive  something  of  the  same 
kind.  For  after  their  blasphemy,  what  is  there  that  is  un¬ 
lawful  for  them  (to  attempt)?  But  should  they  even 
effect  the  contrivance,  they  will  not  advance  a  step.  For 
their  very  doctrine,  after  comparison  with  that  of  the 
apostles,  will  declare,  by  its  own  diversity  and  contrariety 
that  it  had  for  its  author  neither  an  apostle  nor  an  apos¬ 
tolic  man;  because,  as  the  apostles  would  never  have 
taught  things  which  were  self-contradictory,  so  the  apos¬ 
tolic  men  would  not  have  inculcated  teaching  different 
from  the  apostles,  unless  they  who  received  their  instruc¬ 
tion  from  the  apostles  went  and  preached  in  a  contrary 
manner.  To  this  test,  therefore,  will  they  be  submitted 
for  proof  by  those  churches,  who  although  they  derive 
not  their  founder  from  apostles  or  apostolic  men  (as 


107 


being  of  much  later  date,  for  they  are  in  fact  being 
founded  daily),  yet  since  they  agree  in  the  same  faith, 
they  are  accounted  as  not  less  apostolic  because  they  are 
akin  in  doctrine.  Then  let  all  the  heresies,  when  chal¬ 
lenged  to  these  two  tests  by  our  apostolic  church  otfer 
their  proof  of  how  they  deem  themselves  to  be  apostolic. 
But  in  truth  they  neither  are  so,  nor  are  they  able  to  prove 
themselves  to  be  what  they  are  not.  Nor  are  they  admit¬ 
ted  to  peaceful  relations  and  communion  by  such  churches 
as  are  in  any  way  connected  with  apostles,  inasmuch  as 
they  are  in  no  sense  themselves  apostolic  because  of  their 
diversity  as  to  the  mysteries  of  faith”  (ch.  32).  Thus 
in  the  eyes  of  Tertullian,  as  of  Irenaeus,  the  apostolic 
succession  is  the  real  test  of  true  genuine  doctrine.  The 
doctrine  peculiar  to  heretics  cannot  be  traced  back  to  the 
Apostles.  Hence  it  is  not  apostolic,  it  is  not  the  teaching 
of  Christ, 

Were  the  heretics  able  to  invent  a  succession  of  their 
own  going  back  to  the  Apostles,  even  then,  they  would 
confute  themselves,  for  their  very  teaching  belies  its 
apostolic  origin.  The  heretics  teach  contradictory  things. 
Marcion  teaches  one  thing,  Valentine  a  contrary  thing 
and  so  on.  The  Apostles,  however,  taught  one  and  the 
same  thing.  Their  successors,  too,  taught  the  self-same 
things.  The  agreement,  therefore,  of  the  Churches^  doc¬ 
trine  with  that  of  the  Apostles  is  a  certain  sign  of  its 
truth,  the  disagreement  of  the  heretics’  teaching  from 
that  of  the  Apostles  is  proof  of  its  falsehood.  Thus  from 
beginning  to  end  it  is  evident  from  De  Praescriptione 
Haereticorum  that  the  authoritative  teaching  of  the 
Church  is  the  one  true  rule  of  faith. 


8 


108 


SUMMARY. 

From  the  foregoing  study  of  the  early  ecclesiastical 
writings  it  is  quite  plain,  that  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith 
was  not  the  one  taught  and  observed  in  the  early  Church. 

'  Private  interpretation  was  severely  censured  by  the  early 
Fathers.  They  saw  in  private  judgment  the  root  of 
heresy,  dissension  and  evil.  Their  one  and  only  standard 
of  belief,  their  guiding  star  in  doubt  and  controversy, 
was  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles  handed  down  in  the 
apostolic  Churches,  and  taught  and  interpreted  by  the 
bishops. 

St.  Clement,  the  peace-loving  Doctor,  intimately  ac¬ 
quainted  with  the  Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  and  one  of 
the  successors  to  the  Fisherman’s  throne,  testifies  to  the 
divine,  authoritative  teaching  power  of  the  bishops  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians.  St.  Ignatius,  holy  Martyr, 
also  known  to  the  Apostles,  and  Bishop  of  one  of  the 
oldest  communities  in  the  Church,  bears  witness  to  this 
same  divine  teaching  power  in  his  death-message  to  the 
Churches  of  Asia  Minor.  Be  united  with  your  bishop, 
submit  to  the  bishop  as  to  Jesus  Christ,  be  obedient  to 
the  bishop  and  to  the  presbyters  as  to  God  Himself,  is 
the  clarion  cry,  he  utters  on  the  way  to  martyrdom.  And 
St.  Polycarp,  the  friend  of  Ignatius  and  the  devoted  dis¬ 
ciple  of  the  Apostle  St.  John,  is  a  living  exemplar  of 
obedience  to  ecclesiastical  authority.  His  unswerving 
fidelity  to  the  lessons  he  had  learned  from  St.  John,  and 
his  utter  abhorrence  of  any  departure  from  the  apostolic 
doctrine,  is  a  noble  tribute  to  the  authoritative  teaching 
power  of  the  Church.  He  preferred  to  die  rather  than 
speak  evil  of  the  King  who  had  saved  him. 

This  unflinching  fidelity  of  the  Martyr  Polycarp  shines 
forth  with  renewed  splendor  in  his  youthful  disciple  and 
friend  Irenaeus.  It  was  St.  Irenaeus,  the  learned  Bishop 
of  Lyons,  that  sprang  to  the  defense  of  the  one  true  rule 
of  faith,  when  the  Gnostic  heretics  were  trying  to  over- 


109 


throw  it.  With  unprecedented  rigor  did  he  assail  the 
private  interpretations  of  a  Valentinus,  a  Basilides  and  a 
Marcion.  Private  interpretation,  personal  views  and  in¬ 
dividual  theories  he  plainly  shows  have  no  place  in  the 
doctrine  of  Christ  and  His  Church.  They  are  absolutely 
incompatible  with  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles.  There  is 
but  one  true  rule  of  faith,  and  that  is  the  tradition  of  the 
Apostles,  preserved  in  the  Churches  and  taught  by  the 
bishops.  That  the  Churches  have  this  apostolic  rule  of 
faith  is  clear  from  the  successions  of  the  bishops,  which 
go  back  in  unbroken  line  to  the  Apostles  themselves ;  and 
it  is  confirmed  by  the  harmonious  agreement  of  the 
Churches  the  world  over. 

The  arguments  of  Irenaeus  are  sealed  and  cemented  by 
the  gifted  jurist  Tertullian.  If  Irenaeus  stemmed  the 
tide  of  heresy,  it  was  Tertullian  that  dealt  the  final  crush¬ 
ing  blow  to  all  exponents  of  private  interpretation.  Cloth¬ 
ing  his  arguments  in  legal  attire  and  proceeding  with  the 
ingenuity  of  the  gifted  lawyer,  he  shows  the  heretics  that 
they  have  not  even  the  right  to  use  the  Scriptures,  much 
less  to  argue  about  them,  and  to  interpret  them  according 
to  their  own  fancy.  At  the  same  time  he  maintains  that 
the  one  and  only  rule  of  faith  is  the  authoritative  voice  of 
the  Church.  And  like  Irenaeus,  he  proves  it  by  appeal¬ 
ing  to  the  apostolic  succession  in  the  Churches  and  to  the 
harmonious  belief  of  Christians  scattered  throughout  the 
world.  The  faithful  all  over  the  world  could  not  be 
agreed  on  one  and  the  same  thing  unless  it  were  true. 

Thus  in  the  testimony  of  Clement  of  Rome,  of  Ignatius 
of  Antioch,  of  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  of  Irenaeus  of  Caul 
and  of  Tertullian  of  Carthage  there  is  a  chain  of  evidence 
strong  and  incontestable  for  the  Catholic  rule  of  faith: 
the  divine  authoritative  teaching  power  of  the  Catholic 
Church. 


V*  ^ 


r 


•s 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 


D’Ales,  A.,  La  Theologie  de  Tertullien,  Paris,  1905. 

Alzog,  Johannes,  Grundriss  der  Patrologie,  Freiburg  im  Breisgaii,  1869. 

Bacchus,  F.  J.,  Polycarp,  Saint,  Martyr,  Art.  in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia, 
New  York,  1911. 

Bardenhewer,  Otto,  Geschichte  der  Altkirchlichen  Literatur,  1,  und  2.  Bd., 
Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1913. 

Bardenhewer,  Otto,  Patrology,  The  Lives  and  Works  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  Translated  from  the  Second  Edition  by  Thomas  J.  Shahan, 
Freiburg  im  Breisgau  and  St.  Louis,  1908. 

Bartmann,  Bernhard,  Lehrhuch  der  Dogmatik,  1.  Bd.,  Freiburg  im  Breis¬ 
gau,  1920. 

Batiffol,  Pierre,  L’Pglise  Naissante  et  Le  Catholieisme,  Sixi^me  ^Jdition, 
Paris,  1913. 

Batiffol,  Pierre,  Ptudes  d’Histoire  et  de  Theologie  Positive,  Premiere  S6rie, 
Cinquieme  ^idition,  Paris,  1902. 

Batiffol,  Pierre,  Primitive  Catholicism,  Translation  by  Henri  L.  Brian- 
ceau,  from  the  Fifth  French  Edition  of  L’Pglise  Naissante,  revised  by 
the  Author,  New  York,  London,  Bombay  and  Calcutta,  1911. 

Batiffol,  Pierre,  Ignatius,  Poly  carp,  articles  in  James  Hastings’  Dictionary 
of  the  Apostolic  Church,  New  York,  1916. 

Baur,  Ferdinand  Christian,  Das  Christentum  und  Die  Christliche  Kirche 
der  drei  ersten  Jahrhunderten,  1.  und  2.  Bd.,  Tubingen,  1853. 

Baur,  Ferdinand  Christian,  The  Churych  History  of  the  First  Three  Cen¬ 
turies,  Vol.  1  and  2,  Translation  by  Bev.  A.  Menzies,  London  and 
Edinburgh,  1878-1879. 

Baur,  Walter,  Die  Brief e  des  Ignatius  von  Antiochia  und  der  Polycarp- 
hrief,  Tubingen,  1920. 

Beaven,  M.  A.,  An  Account  of  the  Life  and  Writings  of  Irenaeus,  London, 
1841. 

Berington,  Jos.  and  Kirk,  John,  The  Faith  of  Catholics  on  Certain  Points 
of  Controversy,  Confirmed  hy  Scripture  and  Attested  hy  the  Fathers 
of  the  First  Centuries  of  the  Church,  Third  Edition,  Devised  and 
greatly  enlarged  by  The  Rev.  James  Waterworth,  London,  1846. 

Bigg-Maclean,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  London,  1922. 

Bingham,  Joseph,  The  Antiquities  of  the  Chrsitian  Church,  Vol.  1  and  2, 
London,  1878. 

Borkowski,  Stanislaus  v.  Dunin,  S.  J.,  Die  Neueren  Forschungen  uber  die 
Anfdnge  des  Episkopats,  Freiburg  im  Breisgau,  1900. 

Borkowski,  Sanislaus  v.  Dunin,  S.  J.,  Hierarchy,  art.  in  the  Catholic  En¬ 
cyclopedia,  New  York,  1910. 

Borkowski,  Sanislaus  v.  Dunin,  S.  J.,  Die  Interpretation  der  Wichtigsten 
•  Texte  zur  Verfassungsgeschichte  der  alten  Kirche,  Art.  in  the  Zeit- 
schrift  fiir  Katholische  Theologie,  1903,  p.  62-86  and  181-208. 

Ill 


112 


Bonwetscli,  Polykarp,  Art.  in  the  Realencyclopadie  fiir  Protestantische 
Tlieologie  mid  Kirche,  Leipzig,  1904;  Tertullianus,  Art.  in  the  Real- 
encyclopadie  fiir  Protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  Leipzig,  1907. 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  Apologetics,  New  York,  1905. 

Bruce,  A.  B.,  Baur  and  His  Theory  of  the  Origin  of  Christianity  in  Pres¬ 
ent  Day  Tracts,  3  Vol.,  London,  1886. 

Curtis,  William  Alexander,  Cortf essions.  Art.  in  Hastings’  Encyclopedia 
of  Religion  and  Ethics,  New  York,  1919. 

Denzinger,  Heinr.  and  Bannwart  Clem.,  S.  J.,  Enchiridion  Symholorum, 
Editio  Decima  Qiiarta  et  Quinta,  Friburgi  Brisgoviae,  1922. 

Devivier,  Rev.  W.,  S.  J.,  Christian  Apologetics:  A  Defense  of  the  Catholic 
Faith,  Edited  by  The  Rt.  Rev.  S.  G.  Messmer,  D.  D.,  D.  C.  L.,  New  York, 
Cincinnati,  Chicago,  1903. 

Dobschiitz,  Ernst  von,  Prohleme  des  Apostolischen  Zeitalters,  Leipzig, 
1904. 

Dorsch,  Emil,  S.  J.,  Institutiones  Theologiae  Fundament  ales,  Vol.  2,  De 
Ecclesia  Christi,  Oeniponte,  1914. 

Dorsch,  Emil,  S.  J.,  Zur  Hierarchic  des  Hirten,  Art.  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir 
Katholische  Theologie,  1904,  p.  250-295. 

Drews,  Paul,  TJntersuchungen  zur  Didaehe  ( Sonderabdruck  aus  der  Zeit¬ 
schrift  fiir  die  Neutestamentliche  Wissenschaft  und  die  Kunde  des 
Urchristentums)  herausgegeben  von  Dr.  Edwin  Preuschen  in  Darm¬ 
stadt,  1904. 

Duchesne,  L.,  Histoire  Ancienne  de  L’Eglise,  Tome  1,  Cinqui^me  ifedition, 
Paris,  1911. 

Eusebii,  Pamphili,  Eeclesiasticae  Historiae  Libri  Decern,  Patrologiae  Grae- 
cae,  Tomus  XX,  Parisiis,  1857. 

Fischer,  George  Park,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  New  York,  1906. 

Freppel,  M.  L’Abbe,  Cours  d’ Eloquence  Sacree;  Tertullien,  Vol.  1  and  2, 
Paris,  1864. 

Fuller,  J.  M.,  Tertullianus,  Art.  in  Smith-Wace  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Biography,  Vol.  4,  London,  1887. 

Funk,  F.  X.,  Doctrina  Duodecim  Apostolorum,  Tubingae  MDCCCLXXXVII. 

Funk,  F.  X.,  Opera  Patrum  Apostolicorum,  Vol.  1  and  2,  Tubingae,  1881. 

Gallandii,  Andreae,  Prooemia  ad  Epistolas  Sancti  Ignatii  et  Acta  Martyrii 
Ejusdem,  in  Migne,  Patrologiae  Graecae,  Tomus  V,  Parisiis,  1857. 

Goltz,  Edward  Freiherrn  von  der,  Ignatius  von  Antiochien  als  Christ  und 
Theologe,  in  Texte  und  TJntersuchungen  zur  Geschichte  der  Altchrist- 
lichen  Literatur,  herausgegeben  von  Oscar  von  Gebhardt  und  Adolf 
Harnack,  12.  Bd.,  Leipzig,  1895. 

Gore,  Charles,  The  Ministry  of  the  Christian  Church,  London,  1889. 

Gore,  Charles,  The  Origin  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  Art.  in  the  Expositor, 
Third  Ser.,  Vol.  V,  p.  411-425. 

Harnack,  Adolf,  Geschichte  der  Altehristlichen  Literatur  bis  Eusebius,  2. 
Bde.  in  4,  Leipzig,  1893. 


113 


Harnack,  Adolf,  History:  of  Dogma,  Vol.  1,  2  and  3,  translated  by  Neil 
Buchanan,  Boston,  1897. 

Harnack,  Adolf,  Lehre  der  Zwdlf  Apostel  in  Texte  und  Untersuchungen 
zur  Geschichte  der  Altchristlichen  Literatur,  herausgegeben  von  Oscar 
von  Gebhardt  und  Adolf  Harnack,  2.  Bd,,  Leipzig,  1893. 

Harnack,  Adolf,  Marcion:  Das  Evangelium  vom  Fremden  Gott,  Leipzig, 
1921. 

Harnack,  Adolf,  Mission  und  Aushreitung  des  Ghristentums  in  den  Ersten 
Drei  Jahrhunderten,  Zweite  Ayiflage,  1.  und  2.  Bd.,  Leipzig,  1906. 
(Translated  by  James  Moifatt,  The  Expansion  of  Christianity  in  the 
First  Three  Centuries,  New  York  and  London,  1904). 

Harris,  J.  Bendel,  The  Teaching  of  the  Apostles,  Newly  Edited,  with  Fac¬ 
simile  Text  and  a  Commentary  for  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Balti¬ 
more  and  London. 

Harris,  J.  Rendel,  Dr.  Sanday  on  the  Christian  Ministry,  in  the  Expositor, 
Third  Ser.,  Vol.  V,  p.  225-235. 

Hatch,  Edwin,  The  Growth  of  Church  Institutions,  New  York,  1887. 

Hatch,  Edwin,  The  Organization  of  the  Early  Christian  Churches,  London, 
1888. 

Hefele,  Ignace  {E)  d’Antioche,  in  Dictionnaire  Encyclopedique  de  la  The- 
ologie  Catholique,  Vol.  XI,  Paris,  1861. 

Hefelii,  Caroli  Josephi,  De  Septem  Epistolis  S.  Ignatii,  in  Migne,  Patro- 
logiae  Graecae,  Tomus  V,  Parisiis,  1857. 

Hennecke,  Edgar,  Neutestamentliche  Apokryphen,  Tubingen  and  Leipzig, 
1904. 

Hieronymi,  S.  Eusebii,  De  Viris  Illustrihus,  in  Migne,  Patrologiae,  Tomus 
XXIII,  Parisiis,  1845. 

Holtzmann,  H.  J.,  Kanon  und  Tradition,  Ludwigsburg,  1859. 

Hurter,  H.,  S.  J.,  Theologia  Fundamentalis,  Editio  Quarta  Recognita,  Oeni- 
ponte,  1883. 

Hort,  W.  F.  A.,  The  Christian  Ecclesia,  London,  1897. 

Ignatii,  St.,  Episcopii  Antiocheni,  Epistolae,  in  Migne,  Patrologia  Graeca, 
1857. 

Irenaei,  Sancti,  Episcopi  Lugdunensis  et  Martyris,  Detectionis  et  Ever- 
sionis  Falso  Cognominatae  Agnitionis  seu  Contra  Haereses,  Librif 
Quinti,  in  Migne,  Patrologiae  Graecae,  Tomus  VII,  Parisiis,  1882. 

Koch,  F.  J.,  A  Manual  of  Apologetics,  Translated  from  the  Revised  Grcr- 
man  Edition  by  A.  M.  Buchanan,  Revised  and  Edited  by  Rev.  Charles 
Bruehl,  New  York,  1915. 

Knopf,  D.  Rudolf,  Die  Lehre  der  Zwdlf  Apostel^  Die  Zwei  Clemenshriefe, 
im  Handhuch  zum  Neuen  Testament,  Tubingen,  1920. 

Lange,  J.  P.,  Die  Geschichte  der  Kirche,  1.  und  2.  Bd.,  Braunschweig,  1854. 

Lechler,  G.  V.,  The  Apostolic  and  Post-Apostolic  Times,  Translated  by  A. 
J.  K.  Davidson,  Vol.  1  and  2,  Edinburgh,  1886. 

Lightfoot,  J.  B,,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  I  Part  in  2  vols.,  1890;  II  Part 
in  3  vols.,  London,  1885. 


114 


Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  The  Apostolic  Fathers,  1  Vol.,  Edited  and  Completed  by 
J.  B.  Harmer,  London,  1912. 

Lightfoot,  J.  B.,  The  Christian  Ministry,  Dissertation  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  London,  1908. 

Lipsius,  Kichard  Adalbert,  Irenaeus,  Art.  in  Smith- Wace  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Biography,  Vol.  3,  London,  1882. 

Lowrie,  Walter,  The  Church  and  its  Organization  in  Primitive  and  Cath¬ 
olic  Times,  (An  Interpretation  of  Sohm’s  Kirchenrecht ) ,  New  York, 
1904. 

L.  .  .  ,  A.  T.,  Authority,  or  The  Church  with  the  Bible  and  the  Bible 
without  the  Church,  London,  1849. 

Maclean,  A.  J.,  Ministry  {Early  Christian),  Art.  in  Jas.  Hastings’  Ency¬ 
clopedia  of  Religion  and  Ethics,  Vol.  8,  1916. 

Macpherson,  John,  Dr.  Sanday  on  the  Origin  of  the  Christian  Ministry, 
in  the  Expositor,  Third  Ser.,  Vol.  V,  p.  282-303. 

Marsh,  F.  S.,  Clement  of  Rome,  Epistle  of.  Art.  in  Hastings’  Dictionary 
of  the  Apostolic  Church,  Vol.  1,  New  York,  1916. 

Massueti,  D.  R.,  Dissertationes  Praeviae  in  Irenaei  Libros,  in  Migne,  Patro- 
logiae  Graecae  Tomus  VII,  Parisiis,  1882. 

McGiffert,  Arthur  Cushman,  A  History  of  Christianity  in  the  Apostolic 
Age,  New  York,  1903. 

Middleton,  Edmund  Smith,  Unity  and  Rome,  New  York,  1922. 

Milligan,  W.,  The  Origin  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  Art.  in  the  Expositor, 
Third  Ser.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  339-358. 

Moran,  William,  The  Government  of  the  Church  in  the  First  Century, 
New  York,  Cincinnati  and  Chicago,  1913. 

Miinchen,  Karl,  Die  Lehre  der  Zwblf  Apostel,  Art.  in  the  Zeitschrift  fiir 
Katholische  Theologie,  1886,  p.  629-676. 

Neander,  August,  Geschichte  der  Pflanzung  und  Leitung  der  Christlichen 
Kirche  durch  die  Apostel,  Hamburg,  1838. 

Nourry  Le,  D.,  Dissertatio  de  Epistolis  Sancti  Ignatii,  in  Migne,  Patro- 
logia  Graecae,  Tomus  V,  1857. 

Pamelii,  Jacobi,  Vita  Q.  Beptimii  Florentis  Tertulliani  Garthaginiensis 
Presbyteri,  in  Migne,  Patrologiae  Latinae,  Series  Prima,  Tomus  Pri¬ 
mus,  Parisiis,  1844. 

Pearsonii,  Joannis,  Vindiciae  Ignatianae,  in  Migne,  Patrologiae  Graecae, 
Tomus  V,  1857. 

Pfleiderer,  Otto,  Die  Entstehung  des  Christentums,  Miinchen,  1905. 

Pfleiderer,  Otto,  Grundriss  der  Christlichen  Glaubens-  und  Sittenlehre, 
Berlin,  1880. 

Pfleiderer,  Otto,  Primitive  Christianity,  its  Writings  and  Teachings  in 
their  Historical  Connections,  Translated  by  W.  Montgomery,  New 
York,  1906-1911. 

Pfleiderer,  Otto,  Der  Paulinismus,  Leipzig,  1906-1911. 

Polycarpi,  Sancti,  Smyrnaeorum  Episcopi  et  Hieromartyris,  Epistola  ad 
Philippenses,  in  Migne,  Patrologiae  Graecae,  Tomus  V,  Parisiis,  1857. 


115 


Rackl,  Michael  von,  Die  Christologie  des  Heiligen  Ignatius  von  Antiochien, 
Freiburiger  Theol.  Studien  XIV,  1914. 

Rainy,  Robert,  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church,  New  York,  1902. 

Reuss,  Ed.,  History  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostlic  Age,  Translated 
by  Annie  Harwood  from  the  Third  Edition,  Vol.  1  and  8,  London, 
1872. 

Ritschl,  Albert,  Die  Entstehung  der  Altkatholischen  Kirche,  Bonn,  Zweite 
Auflage,  1857. 

Rothe,  Richard,  Die  Anfdnge  der  Christlichen  Kirche  und  Hire  Verfassung, 
1.  Bd.,  Wittenburg,  1837. 

Sabatier,  Paul,  La  Didache  ou  L’Enseignement  des  Douze  Apotres,  Paris, 
1885. 

Salmon,  George,  The  Christian  Ministry,  Art.  in  the  Expositor,  Third  Ser., 
Vol.  VI,  p.  2-27. 

Salmon,  George,  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  Art.  in  Smith-Wace, 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography,  Vol.  IV,  London,  1887. 

Salmon,  George,  Clemens  Romanus,  Art.  in  Smith-Wace  Dictionary  of 
Christian  Biography,  Vol.  I,  London,  1900. 

Sanday,  W.,  The  Origin  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  Art.  in  the  Expositor, 
Third  Ser.,  Vol.  V,  p.  1-22  and  97-114. 

Schaff,  Philip,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom  with  a  History  and  Critical 
Notes,  Vol.  1,  2  and  3,  New  York,  1877. 

Schaff,  Philip,  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  or  The  Oldest  Church 
Manual,  New  York,  1890. 

Schumacher,  Henry,  Handbook  of  Scripture  Study,  \^ol.  Ill,  St.  Louis, 
1922. 

Sergeant,  John,  The  Rule  of  Faith  Truly  Stated,  or  A  Key  to  Controversy 
(in  answer  to  Dr. '  Tilloston’s  “Rule  of  Faith”),  3  parts  in  1  vol., 
1721. 

Simcox,  G.  A.,  The  Origin  of  the  Christian  Ministry,  Art.  in  the  Expositor, 
Third  Ser.,  Vol.  VI,  p.  198-215. 

Smith,  R.  Travers,  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch,  Art.  in  Smith-Wace,  Diction¬ 
ary  of  Christian  Biography,  Vol.  3,  London,  1882. 

Sohm,  Rudolf,  Kirchenrecht,  1.  Bd.,  Leipzig,  1892. 

Swete,  Henry  Barclay,  Patristic  Study,  New  York  and  London,  1902. 

Tertullianus,  Quintus  Septimius  Florens,  Liber  de  Praeseriptionibus  Ad- 
versus  Haereticos,  in  Migne’s  Patrologia  Latina,  Series  Prima,  Tomus 
Secundus  Parisiis,  1844. 

Tixeront,  J.,  Histoire  des  Dogmes,  I.  La  Theologie  Ante-Nic^ene,  Paris, 
1905. 

Watt,  Hugh,  The  Didache,  Art.  in  Hastings’  Dictionary  of  the  Apostolic 
Church,  Vol.  1,  New  York,  1916. 

Weizsacker,  Das  Apostolische  Zeitalter  der  Christlichen  Kirche,  Freiburg 
im  Breisgau,  1892. 

Wrede,  W.,  Untersuchungen  zum  Ersten  Klemensbriefe,  Gottingen,  1891. 

Wilhelm- Scannell,  Manual  of  Catholic  Theology,  Vol.  1,  London,  1899. 


116 


Uhlhorn,  D.  Gr.,  Clemens  von  Rom.,  Art.  in  the  Realencyklopadie  fiir  Pro- 
testantische  Theologie  und  Kirche,  Vol.  4,  Leipzig,  1898. 

Zahn,  Theodore,  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament,  3  vol.,  Translated 
from  the  Third  German  Edition  under  the  direction  and  supervision 
of  Melancthon  Williams  Jacobus,  Edinburgh,  1909. 

Zahn,  Theodor,  Ignatius  von  ArptiocMen,  Gotha,  1873. 


CK* 


Universitas  Catholic  a  Americae 


Washingtoji,  D.  C. 


S.  Facultas  Theologica,  1923-1924 


No.  22 


THESES 


3 

<! 


t 

if 

i 


DEUS  LUX  MEA 


THESES 

QUAS 

AD  DOCTORATUM 
IN 

SACRA  THEOLOGIA 

APUD  UNIVEESITATEM  CATHOLICAM  AMEKICAB 

CONSEQUENDUM 
PUBLICE  PKOPUGNABIT 
ALPHONSES  JOANNES  GOAN,  0.  F.  M. 
PKOVINCIAE  SS.  COKDIS  JESU,  ST.  LUDOVICI,  MO. 
S.  THEOL.  LICENCIATUS. 


3* 


1 


THESES 


1 

The  Protestant  theory  that  the  Bible,  privately  interpreted,  is  the  sole 
rule  of  faith  is  untenable. 

2 

The  Gospel  sayings  of  Jesus  plainly  indicate  that  He  meant  His  Church 
to  possess  the  three-fold  authority  to  teach,  to  rule  and  to  sanctify 
mankind. 

3 

The  Epistles  of  St.  Paul  bear  ample  testimony  to  this  authority  in  the 
primitive  Church. 

4 

The  New  Testament  concept  of  Church  authority  includes  the  recognition 
of  infallibility  in  its  exercise. 

5 

St.  Clement’s  Letter  to  the  Corinthians  is  a  noteworthy  witness  to  the 
Catholic  rule  of  faith. 

6 

St.  Clement’s  Letter  is  not  merely  a  friendly  exhortation  written  in  the 
name  of  the  Roman  Church,  but  it  is  an  authoritative  message  from  the 
Bishop  of  Rome. 

7 

Chapter  44  of  Clement’s  Letter  is  not,  as  Baur  asserts,  merely  the  wish 
to  give  the  congregational  constitution  which  existed  in  his  time  the  sanc¬ 
tion  of  apostolic  authority. 

8  ' 

The  words  therein,  “  with  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church,”  do  not 
signify  a  democratic  form  of  Church  government. 

9 

The  Didache,  far  from  favoring  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  furnishes 
confirmatory  evidence  in  favor  of  the  Catholic  acceptance  of  the  authori¬ 
tative  teaching  of  the  Ohurcih. 

10 

Chapter  15  of  the  Didache  cannot  be  adduced  as  an  argument  for  the 
congregational  system  of  Church  government. 

11 

The  Didache  is  not  a  proof,  as  Harnack  and  others  maintain,  that  the 
bishops  and  deacons  were  dependent  upon  the  itinerant  ministers  for  their 
teaching  authority. 


6* 


12 

The  Ignatian  Letters  are  a  repudiation  of  private  interpretation  in 
doctrinal  matters. 

13 

The  Ignatian  Epistles  bear  witness  that  the  three-fold  office  of  bishop, 
priest  and  deacon  is  of  apostolic  institution. 

14 

St.  Polycarp,  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  is  a  trustworthy  witness  to  the 
apostolic  tradition. 

15 

The  repeated  insistence  of  St.  Irenaeus  on  the  conformity  of  true  belief 
with  the  traditional  teaching  of  the  apostolic  Churches  is  totally  exclusive 
of  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith. 

16 

The  testimony  of  Hegesippus  is  important  evidence  in  favor  of  the 
apostolic  succession. 

17 

In  his  work  The  Prescription  of  Heretics,  Tertullian  makes  plain  that 
private  interpretation  of  Scripture,  the  favorite  principle  of  heretics,  is  a 
false  guide,  leading  to  error. 

18 

The  primacy  of  the  Popes  is  evidenced  in  the  works  of  Clement,  Ignatius 
and  Irenaeus,  while  the  conduct,  neither  of  Irenaeus  nor  of  Polycarp,  can 
be  construed  into  a  practical  denial  of  it. 

19 

The  view  of  Sohm  and  others  that  the  primitive  Church  was  giiided  by 
inspired  teachers  charismatically  endowed,  and  that  in  post- Apostolic 
times  it  was  transformed  into  the  Catholic  Church  by  the  introduction 
of  the  hierarchical  organization,  cannot  be  maintained. 

20 

The  well-known  passage  on  Christ  in  Josephus’  Antiquities,  XVIII,  3, 
3,  while  probably  retouched  by  a  Christian  hand,  is  of  value  as  a  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  historical  reality  of  Jesus. 

21 

The  Christ-myth  theory,  proposed  by  a  few  modern  radical  scholars, 
contradicts  the  evidence  of  Scripture  and  is  inconsistent  with  historical 
facts. 

22 

While  some  few  general  similarities  may  be  found  between  Zoroastrian¬ 
ism  and  Christianity,  it  can  in  no  wise  be  held  that  Christianity  is  in  any 
way  dependent  upon  it  for  its  doctrines. 


23 


Zoroastrianism,  tliougli  commanding  admiration  for  many  excellent  fea¬ 
tures,  is  greatly  inferior  to  the  revealed  religion  of  Christ. 

24 

The  wonderful  propagation  of  the  Christian  religion  cannot  be  depre¬ 
ciated  by  comparison  with  the  wide  and  rapid  diffusion  of  Mithraism. 

25 

The  miraculous  element  in  the  Gospels  is  so  intimately  woven  into  the 
narrative,  that  one  may  not  consistently  reject  the  miracles  as  spurious 
and  accept  the  sayings  of  Jesus  as  authentic. 


26 


The  theory,  that  our  idea  of  God  is  inborn,  is  opposed  to  the  teaching 
of  the  Church. 


27 


That  the  human  intellect  already  in  this  life  enjoys  an  immediate  in¬ 
tuition  of  the  Divine  Essence,  has  no  foundation,  in  Scripture  or  Tradition. 


28 

Regarding  God’s  relation  to  evil,  we  must  hold  that  He  can  will  natural 
evil,  and  evil  inflicted  as  a  punishment,  only  per  accidens  and  that  He  can 
never  will  sin,  but  merely  permits  it. 


29 


That  God  created  the  world  is  clearly  demonstrated  in  Holy  Writ  and 
Tradition. 


30 


The  ultimate  purpose  of  Creation  {finis  operis)  is,  primarily,  the  glori¬ 
fication  of  God,  secondarily,  the  beatification  of  His  rational  creatures. 


31 

The  Divinity  of  Christ  is  firmly  established  by  numerous  passages  in  the 
New  Testament  writings. 

32 

Sacred  Scripture  ascribes  to  the  Holy  Ghost  divine  attributes  both  of 
being  and  of  life. 

33 

The  dogmatic  teaching  of  the  Church  in  regard  to  the  integrity  of 
Christ’s  human  nature  is  merely  the  technical  formulation  of  a  truth 
plainly  contained  in  Holy  Scripture  and  Tradition. 


34 

The  sacred  humanity  of  Christ  as  a  whole,  and  its  several  members, 
especially  His  Sacred  Heart,  are  entitled  to  divine  adoration. 

9 


8* 


35 

It  is  de  fide  that  the  faith  whereby  man  is  justified  is  not  a  confident 
persuasion  of  being  esteemed  righteous  in  the  sight  of  God,  but  a  dogmatic 
or  theoretical  belief  in  the  truths  of  Divine  Revelation. 


3() 

For  several  centuries  before  the  Protestant  Reformation,  the  belief  in 
the  seven  Sacraments  was  universal  throughout  the  Church. 

37 

Christ  himself  instituted  all  the  Sacraments  in  the  sense  that  He  alone, 
by  His  passion  and  death,  is  their  meritorious  cause. 

38 

The  Sacraments  are  really  and  truly  efficient  causes  ex  opere  operate, 
producing  their  effects  independently  of  the  merits  and  disposition  of  the 
recipients,  not  placing  an  obstacle  to  grace  {non  ponentihus  ohicem) . 

39 

Baptism  is  necessary  for  salvation,  but,  under  certain  conditions  the 
place  of  Baptism  by  water  (Baptismus  fluminis)  may  be  supplied  by  Bap¬ 
tism  of  desire  {Baptismus  flaminis),  or  by  Baptism  of  blood  {Baptismus 
sanguinis ) . 

40 

The  New  Testament  contains  two  classic  texts  which  prove  the  Real 
Presence,  viz..  Our  Lord’s  promise  recorded  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  St. 
John’s  Gospel,  and  the  words  of  institution  as  reported  by  the  synoptics 
and  St.  Paul  ( I  Cor.  xi,  23  sqq. ) . 

41 

Regarding  the  interpretation  of  the  Hexaemeron,  theologians  and  sci¬ 
entists  are  free  to  adopt  whatever  theory  they  prefer,  provided  it  be  rea¬ 
sonable  and  not  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church. 

42 

With  regard  to  the  deluge  it  seems  not  to  be  contradictory  to  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  narrative,  to  admit  a  relative  universality. 

43 

There  is  not  sufficient  evidence  to  prove,  that  the  facts  recorded  in  the 
Book  of  Jonas  are  unhistorical. 

44 

The  Damnatio  Memoriae,  a  principle  known  to  the  peoples  of  antiquity, 
seems  to  be  the  best  solution  for  the  omissions  in  St.  Matthew’s  genealogy. 

45 

The  text  of  Matthew  i,  16,  despite  the  seemingly  contrary  readino-  of 
Syrus  Sinaiticus,  refers  to  the  supernatural  birth  of  Christ. 


9^ 


46 

Three  conditions  are  required  to  constitute  a  mortal  sin,  namely,  a  grave 
matter,  full  knowledge  of  the  evil  and  full  consent  of  the  will. 

47 

Man  is  obliged  by  a  divine  precept  to  love  his  neighbor. 

48 

The  obligation  of  receiving  Holy  Communion  is  imposed  upon  the  faith¬ 
ful  both  by  a  divine  and  by  an  ecclesiastical  law. 

49 

The  arguments  which  furnish  the  basis  for  Henry  George’s  attack  on 
private  ownership  will  not  stand  investigation. 

50 

The  interest-taker  is  justified  on  the  grounds  of  presumption,  analogy 
and  possession. 

51 

Canons  80-86. 

52 

Canons  518-530. 

53 

Canons  762-769. 

54 

Canons  1043-1047. 

55 

Canons  1094-1099. 

56 

The  seven  Ignatian!  Letters,  as  enumerated  by  Eusebius  and  as  con¬ 
tained  in  the  so-called  Middle  Recension,  must  be  accepted  as  the  genuine 
and  authentic  work  of  St.  Ignatius  of  Antioch. 

57 

According  to  internal  and  external  evidence  the  date  of  the  Didache  must 
be  assigned  not  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  but  rather  to  the 
end  of  the  first  or  to  the  beginning  of  the  second  century. 

58 

The  Catholic  Church  in  the  English  Colonies  on  the  eve  of  the  American 
Revolution  was  greatly  thwarted  by  religious  intolerance. 


The  years  1784-1789  mark  a  critical  period  in  the  history  of  the  Cath¬ 
olic  Church  in  America. 


60 


The  evangelization  of  Upper  California  (the  present  state  of  California) 
is  the  work  of  the  Franciscan  Friars,  who  entered  the  new  territory  in  the 
year  1769  under  the  leadership  of  Junipero  Serra. 


Vidit  Sacra  Facultas: 

Patrick  J.  Healy,  S.  T.  D.,  p.  t.  Decanus 
Eoderick  MacEachen,  S.  T.  D.,  p.  t.  a  Secretis 

Vidit  Rector  Universitatis : 

\  •¥  Thomas  J.  Shahan,  S.  T.  D. 


BIOGRAPHY. 


Alphonse  Liguori  John  Coan  was  born  at  Ashland, 
Wis.,  October  20,  1892.  He  received  his  elementary 
training  at  St.  Agnes’  Parochial  School  and  his  classical 
education  at  St.  Joseph  Seraphic  College,  Teutopolis, 
Ill.  He  entered'the  Order  of  Friars  Minor  at  Teutopolis, 
Ill.,  June  21, 1911.  Having  made  his  religious  profession 
June  22,  1912,  he  spent  two  years  at  Quincy,  Ill.  in  the 
study  of  humanities.  Thereupon  he  pursued  the  pre¬ 
scribed  courses  in  philosophy  and  theology  at  the  Fran¬ 
ciscan  Seminary  in  Cleveland,  West  Park,  Ohio.  Raised 
to  the  priesthood  on  June  25,  1919,  at  Cleveland,  he  was 
sent  to  St.  Louis,  Mo.  to  finish  his  theological  course  in 
the  Franciscan  Friary  of  that  city.  The  following  year 
(1920-21)  he  devoted  to  the  teaching  of  the  classics  at 
St.  Joseph  Seraphic  College,  Teutopolis,  Ill.  In  the  fall 
of  1921  he  matriculated  at  the  Catholic  University  of 
America.  Here  he  specialized  in  the  study  of  Apolo¬ 
getics  and  attended  the  courses  in  Dogmatic  Theology 
and  New  Testament  Exegesis.  He  received  the  degrees 
of  S.  T.  B.  and  S.  T.  L.  in  June  1922. 


■■n 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 
IN  THE  ECCLESIASTICAL  WRITINGS 
OF  THE  FIRST  TWO  CENTURIES 

AN  HISTORICO-APOLOGETICAL  INVESTIGATION 


Dissertation 

SUBMITTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  SACRED  SCIENCES  AT  THE  CATHOLIC 
UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILMENT  OF  THE 
REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  IN  SACRED  THEOLOGY 


BY  THE 

REV.  ALPHONSE  JOHN  COAN,  O.  F.  M.,  S.  T.  L., 

OF  THE  PROVINCE  OP  THE  SACRED  HEART, 

ST.  LOUIS,  MISSOURI 


THE  UBKAH?  OF  THE 

liNiVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


1924 


t 


i 

.% 

i 


